THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


ENFORCED  PEACE 


Proceedings  of  the  First  Annual  National 
Assemblage  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  Washington, 
May  26-27,  1916 


With  an  Introductory  Chapter  and  Appen- 
dices Giving  the  Proposals  of  the 
League,  Its  Oflficers  and 
Committees 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

70  Fifth  Avenue 
NEW  YORK 


nils 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

A  Remarkable  Gathering 3 

The  League  Program    .     Thomas  Raeburn  White  13 
The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  and  the  Soul  of  the 

United  States  ....  Edward  A.  Filene  36 
The  League  Program,  Preparedness  and  Ulti- 
mate Reduction  of  Armaments  Hamilton  Holt  50 
"^Constitutionality  of  the  Proposals     Wm.  H.  Taft  58 
The  Monroe  Doctrine  .      .  George  Grafton  Wilson  67 
Entangling  Alliances  Now,  and  in  Washington's 

Day Talcott  Williams  77 

N  The  European  Nations  and  the  League  Program 

John  Bates  Clark  85 
American  Business  and  the  League  to  Enforce 

Peace R.G.  Rhett  93 

The  League's  Service  to  the  World  H.  A.  Wheeler  loi 
American  Labor  and  a  Constructive  Settlement 

of  the  War Samuel  Gompers  104 

American  Agriculture  and  the  League  to  Enforce 

Peace Carl  Vrooman  115 

V  American  Ideals  and  the  League  Program 

Newton  D.  Baker  122 
The  League  to  Enforce  Peace:  A  Reply  to  Critics 

Theodore  Marburg  128 

Perfecting  the  Organization     .  Philip  H.  Gadsden  143 

Planning  the  Campaign     .      .  /.  Mott  Hallowell  148 

Publicity  Plans  .      .      .      .      Herbert  S.  Hotiston  152 

Mobilization  of  Our  Forces    William  H.  Wadhams  154 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

>*   The  Thought  and  Purpose  of  the  People 

President  Wilson     159 
^  Great  Work  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 

Henry  Cabot  Lodge     164 
What  the  Churches  Have  at  Stake  in  the  Success 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 

Shailer  Mathews     167 
>  How  Social  Progress  Depends  on  the  Success  of 

the  League  Platform    .  Franklin  H.  Giddings     170 
\<A  Platform  on  Which   the  Whole  World  Can 

Stand A.  Lawrence  Lowell     175 

Enforcing  the  Recognition  of  Justice 

Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler  180 
The  New  Hampshire  Way  .  .  Frank  S.  Streeter  183 
An  Ideal  With  Limitations  Nehemiah  Boynton  187 
Proposals  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  .  .  189 
Officers  and  Committees  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace 191 


ENFORCED  PEACE 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/enforcedpeaceOOIeagiala 


ENFORCED   PEACE 

CHAPTER  I 
A  REMARKABLE  GATHERING 

"The  largest  and  most  distinguished  gathering 
of  a  voluntary  character  that  ever  assembled  in 
this  city,"  so  the  Washington  Star  asserted,  met 
in  the  Belasco  Theatre  in  the  Nation's  Capital  on 
the  morning  of  May  26,  1916.  Its  purpose,  as 
announced  in  the  language  of  the  official  call,  was 
*'To  devise  and  determine  upon  measures  for 
giving  effect  to  the  proposals  adopted  at  the  con- 
ference held  last  June  in  Independence  Hall,  in 
Philadelphia,  for  a  League  of  nations  to  Enforce 
Peace." 

The  first  annual  national  assemblage  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  was  notable  in  many 
ways.  The  man  who  had  been  the  twenty-seventh 
president  of  the  United  States,  as  president  of 
the  League,  called  the  meeting  to  order  and  intro- 
duced the  speakers.  Another  who  had  once  been 
the  Democratic  candidate  for  the  presidency 
was  the  vice-president  of  the  League.  The  list 
of  speakers  at  the  six  sessions  was  exceptional, 
including,  as  it  did,  the  president  of  the  Chamber 


4  ENFORCED     PEACE 

of  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  the  president 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the  Chair- 
man of  the  New  York  Public  Service  Commission, 
the  president  of  Harvard  University,  a  United 
States  Senator,  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States  himself. 

An  interesting  feature  was  the  diversity  of  re- 
ligious faiths  and  creeds  brought  together  in  a 
common  cause.  A  CathoHc  priest,  a  Congre- 
gational minister,  and  the  dean  of  a  Baptist 
Divinity  School  deHvered  addresses,  while  an 
Episcopal  bishop  offered  the  opening  prayer. 

In  poHtics,  also,  the  variety  of  views  represented 
was  wide.  But  the  outstanding  feature  that 
made  this  assemblage  truly  extraordinary  was 
that  in  it  advocates  of  adequate  military  prepared- 
ness and  of  non-resistance,  with  all  the  shades  of 
opinion  between  these  extremes,  sat  side  by  side 
in  the  same  auditorium  and  spoke  from  the  same 
platform  in  behalf  of  one  plan  of  action  upon  which 
all  were  agreed.  In  fact,  in  the  diversity  of  other- 
wise irreconcilable  views  entertained  by  men  who, 
for  once,  were  working  harmoniously  together 
to  promote  a  common  purpose,  the  first  annual 
assemblage  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  has 
seldom  been  surpassed.  The  one  point  upon 
which  these  divergent  minds  came  to  a  common 
focus  was  the  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  owes  its  origin 
to  the  wave  of  horror  and  indignation  that  swept 


ENFORCED  PEACE  5 

over  the  world  upon  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in 
Europe.  Right  thinking  men  in  every  land  re- 
solved within  a  week  of  the  beginning  of  that 
tragedy  that  it  should  never  be  repeated  if  they 
could  help  it.  Given  this  attitude  of  mind  it  was 
inevitable  that  some  sort  of  creative  action  should 
follow,  not  to  stop  nor  even  to  limit  nor  control 
the  war  then  raging,  for  all  recognized  the  futility 
of  any  such  attempt;  but  to  set  in  motion  the 
machinery  that  would  provide  something  to  take 
the  place  of  slaughter  in  settling  some,  if  not  all, 
future  international  disputes. 

The  United  States  took  the  lead  in  jthis  creative 
action  because  in  this  country  alone  the  energies 
of  the  people  were  not  wholly  engrossed  with 
preparations  for  national  defense.  Among  political 
economists,  international  lawyers,  and  other  leaders 
of  thought  the  idea  gradually  took  shape  that  an 
AlHance  or  League  comprising  principal  Nations, 
by  agreeing  to  use  their  joint  economic  and  military 
forces,  could  enforce  peace  among  themselves. 
So  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  was  proposed. 

That  was  something  everybody  could  under- 
stand. Every  city  and  town  has  its  police  force, 
every  village  its  marshal,  every  rural  precinct  its 
constable,  as  the  visible  embodiment  of  the  majesty 
of  the  law,  ever  ready  to  enforce  respect  for  the 
statutes  when  voluntary  observance  fails.  To 
compel  a  whole  people  to  obey  the  law  of  nations 
is  but  to  carry  a  step  farther  a  practice  with  which 
all  the  world  is  familiar  in  its  daily  life. 


6  ENFORCED  PEACE 

This  idea  is  not  new,  but  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  worked  out  by  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  is  new.  Instead  of  pooling  all  the  various 
military  and  naval  forces  to  constitute  a  grand  army 
of  the  world  under  the  supreme  command  of  one 
leader  who  might  be  tempted  to  make  embarrass- 
ing use  of  his  absolute  power,  as  has  been  proposed 
from  time  to  time,  the  plan  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace  provides  that  each  nation  shall  retain 
its  complete  autonomy  in  military  affairs  as  it 
does  in  all  other  matters ;  but  that  each  shall  pledge 
itself  to  stand  ready  to  furnish  its  quota  to  punish 
transgressors  of  the  international  agreement  as 
the  nations  combined  to  suppress  the  boxer  re- 
bellion in  China  sixteen  years  ago.  Add  to  this 
joint  use  of  miUtary  force  the  boycott  to  coerce 
an  offender  and  you  have  the  measures  by  which 
it  is  proposed  to  provide  the  peace  movement  with 
a  spinal  column. 

In  due  time  a  call  for  a  national  conference  at 
Philadelphia,  June  17,  191 5,  was  sent  out  signed 
by  one  hundred  and  twenty  of  the  foremost  men 
in  industry,  finance,  commerce,  transportation, 
politics,  diplomacy,  art,  education,  and  the  church. 

Three  hundred  men  responded  to  the  call  for 
the  Philadelphia  meeting  including  the  individual 
members  of  the  special  committee  on  economic 
results  of  the  war  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  the  United  States.  In  a  preliminary  discussion, 
following  a  dinner  on  the  evening  of  June  16,  the 
plan  and  scope  of  the  proposed  "League  of  Peace" 


ENFORCED  PEACE  7 

were  pretty  fully  outlined.  The  formal  confer- 
ence was  held  on  the  anniversary  of  the  Battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  in  the  hall  in  which  the  immortal 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  signed,  two 
omens,  which,  it  was  hoped,  promised  well  for 
the  proposed  emancipation  of  the  human  race 
from  the  bloody  tyranny  of  war.  The  proposed 
name  of  the  organization  there  formed  was  en- 
larged to  the  "League  to  Enforce  Peace,"  and  W.  y 
H.  Taft  was  elected  president. 

In  the  addresses  delivered  at  this  conference  the 
facts  were  clearly  developed  that  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  did  not  contemplate  any  attempt  to 
interfere  with  the  course  of  the  present  war  in 
Europe;  but  that  it  proposed  a  constructive  pro- 
gram to  be  ready  at  hand  when  hostilities  were  at 
an  end  wherewith  the  nations  might  start  anew. 
By  providing  saner  methods  of  settling  inter- 
national disputes  it  was  hoped  that  the  frequency 
of  wars  might  be  reduced,  but  the  fact  was  frankly 
recognized  that  so  long  as  human  nature  remains  \ 
what  it  is  there  are  likely  to  be  some  wars. 

The  principles  upon  which  this  hope  was  based 
were  formulated  as  follows: 


"  We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  for  the  United  States  to 
join  a  league  of  nations  binding  the  signatories  to  the 
following: 

"First :  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the 
signatory  powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall,  sub- 
ject to  the  limitations  of  treaties,  be  submitted  to  a 
judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judgment,  both  upon 


8  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  merits  and  upon  any  issue  as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the 
question. 

"Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between  the 
signatories,  and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing  considera- 
tion and  recommendation, 

"Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forth- 
with both  their  economic  and  miUtary  forces  against 
any  one  of  their  number  that  goes  to  war,  or  commits 
acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of  the  signatories  before 
any  question  arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in 
the  foregoing. 

"  Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  powers 
shall  be  held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate  and  codify 
rules  of  international  law,  which,  unless  some  signatory 
shall  signify  its  dissent  within  a  stated  period,  shall 
thereafter  govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  judicial  tri- 
bunal mentioned  in  article  one." 

Later  on  the  following  interpretation  of  Article 
Three  was  authorized  by  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee : 

"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use,  forthwith, 
their  economic  forces  against  any  of  their  number  that 
refuses  to  submit  any  question  which  arises  to  an  inter- 
national judicial  tribunal  or  council  of  conciliation  be- 
fore issuing  an  ultimatum  or  threatening  war.  They 
shall  follow  this  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces 
against  that  nation  if  it  actually  proceeds  to  make 
war  or  invades  another's  territory." 

The  immediate  task  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
set  itself  was  to  explain  its  aims  and  purposes  to 
all  the  people  in  order  that  an  enlightened  public 
opinion  might  be  constituted  and  prepared  to  sup- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  9 

port  this  government  when  the  time  came  for  it 
to  negotiate  with  other  nations. 

The  proposals  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
attracted  a  great  deal  of  favorable  attention. 
The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States, 
an  organization  representing  a  constituency  of 
350,000  business  men,  firms,  and  corporations  in 
every  state  in  the  Union,  held  a  referendum  on  the 
League's  proposals,  submitting  to  each  voter,  as 
its  by-laws  direct,  an  impartial  statement  giving  the 
arguments  both  for  and  against  the  proposition. 
In  response  to  this  referendum  more  than  96  per 
cent,  of  the  vote  approved  the  proposition  that 
this  country  should  take  the  initiative  in  forming 
a  league  of  nations  which  should  agree  to  submit 
justiciable  questions  arising  between  any  of  its 
members  to  an  international  court,  and  non- 
justiciable questions  to  a  council  of  conciliation 
for  decision  or  recommendation  before  resorting 
to  war. 

The  League's  program  was  also  indorsed  by 
the  National  Economic  League  and  by  various 
peace  societies,  including  the  World  Peace  Foun- 
dation. It  was  also  very  generally  approved  by 
leading  newspapers  and  by  public  men  throughout 
the  country.  In  fact,  the  propaganda  in  behalf 
of  the  League  program  was  disseminated  far  more 
thoroughly  and  won  far  greater  general  approval 
than  any  one  connected  with  the  movement  had 
dared  to  hope. 

So  it  happened  that  the  first  annual  National 


lo  ENFORCED  PEACE 

assemblage,  summoned  to  meet  in  Washington 
May  26  and  27,  1916,  "To  devise  and  detennine 
upon  measures  for  giving  effect  to  the  proposals 
adopted  at  the  conference  held  last  June  in  Inde- 
pendence Hall,  in  Philadelphia,  for  a  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,"  as  already  described,  ehcited  a 
response  that  astounded  and  deHghted  all  who 
had  taken  an  active  part  in  promoting  the  League 
and  all  who  beUeved  in  saner  international  rela- 
tions. 

The  few  active  workers  immediately  identified 
with  the  preparations  for  the  Washington  confer- 
ence, while  maintaining  for  purposes  of  publication 
an  optimism  possibly  equalled,  but  certainly  never 
surpassed,  by  the  chairman  of  a  political  campaign 
committee  just  before  •  election,  privately  assured 
each  other  that  if  they  could  only  muster  an  at- 
tendance of  three  hundred  the  conference  might 
be  considered  a  success. 

Two  days  before  the  date  for  the  first  session 
more  than  two  thousand  delegates,  representing 
every  walk  in  Hfe,  and  from  every  state  in  the 
Union,  not  to  mention  Alaska,  Hawaii,  and  Porto 
Rico,  had  registered  at  temporary  headquarters 
at  the  New  Willard  Hotel,  while  others  were  com- 
ing in  on  every  train.  The  little  hall  that  had 
seemed  ample  to  meet  the  modest  anticipations 
of  the  committee  on  arrangements  was  hastily 
exchanged  for  the  Belasco  Theatre,  a  much  larger 
auditorium.  Applications  for  seats  at  the  closing 
dinner,  at  which  President  Wilson  was  to  be  the 


ENFORCED  PEACE  ii 

principal  speaker,  were  not  so  easily  disposed  of, 
for  there  was  but  one  available  place  in  which  to 
serve  so  large  a  public  dinner.  The  dinner  com- 
mittee simply  filled  every  available  seat  and  was 
forced  to  turn  the  remaining  applicants  away. 

President  Taft  presided  at  all  sessions,  though  he 
was  obliged  to  absent  himself  from  part  of  the 
first  two .  A  number  of  the  honorary  vice-presidents, 
other  officers  and  committeemen  occupied  seats 
on  the  stage,  while  the  auditorium  was  packed 
with  delegates  who  evidently  came  to  approve  all 
that  was  good,  for  applause  was  spontaneous, 
frequent,  and  hearty  enough  to  inspire  the  most 
blase  of  public  speakers. 

The  program  which  had  been  very  carefully 
worked  out  to  cover  all  phases  of  the  League's 
proposals,  and  the  subjects  assigned  to  speakers  of 
national  prominence  best  quaHfied  to  deal  with 
each,  was  divided  into  four  general  topics;  namely, 
"The  platform,"  ''Practicability  of  the  League 
Program,"  "American  Interests  Affected  by  the 
League  Program,"  and  "Plans  for  Giving  Effect 
to  the  League  Program."  One  session  was  set 
apart  for  questions  and  discussions  by  delegates, 
while  the  addresses  at  the  closing  dinner  dealt 
with  the  broader  aspects  of  the  League  program. 

By  common  consent  the  list  of  addresses  at 
this  dinner  was  conceded  to  be  one  of  the  best 
ever  heard  at  a  public  dinner  in  Washington. 
President  Wilson's  address  in  particular,  which 
was  read  with  profound  interest  throughout  the 


12  ENFORCED  PEACE 

world,  was  a  notable  utterance.  It  was  the 
formulation  of  a  new  and  nobler  conception  of 
world  statesmanship — a  Declaration  of  Human 
Rights  dest  ned  to  live  in  history. 

Taken  together  the  papers  and  addresses  pre- 
sented at  the  first  annual  assemblage  cover  the 
subject  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  program 
very  fully.  They  will  be  found,  grouped  accord- 
ing to  general  topics,  in  the  succeeding  pages. 

Charles  Frederick  Carter. 


THOMAS  RAEBURN  WHITE 
Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


CHAPTER  II 

'THE  PLATFORM" 

The  opening  session  of  the  first  annual  assem- 
blage of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  on  the  morn- 
ing of  May  26,  1916,  was  devoted  to  "The  Plat- 
form." The  first  paper  on  this  general  topic  was, 
presented  by  Thomas  Raeburn  White,  of  Phil- 
adelphia, as  follows: 

THE   LEAGUE   PROGRAM 

The  present  war  has  demonstrated  that  existing  in- 
ternational institutions  are  unable  to  restrain  the  rush  of 
national  ambition  bent  upon  reaUzing  its  ends  by  an  ap- 
peal to  arms.  The  cause  of  this  failure  was  not  the 
weakness  of  international  law,  but  lay  in  the  fact  that  no- 
machinery  existed  by  which  nations  could  be  forced  to 
submit  their  disputes  to  international  courts  or  boards 
of  conciliation. 

Competent  means  for  peaceable  adjustment  were  at 
hand,  but  because  there  was  no  power  to  compel  their 
use  the  greatest  war  in  history  has  swept  over  Europe 
and  has  carried  desolation  and  sorrow  into  every  clime. 
This  appalling  conflict  has  concentrated  the  mind  of  the 
world  upon  the  question — what  can  be  done  to  prevent 
a  like  catastrophe  from  recurring? 

The  object  of  this  conference  is  to  promote  a  League 
of  Nations  to  Enforce  Peace — a  world  organization 
which  will  tend  to  prevent  war  by  forcing  its  members, 
to  try  peaceable  settlement  first. 

13 


14  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Our  proposals  are  brief  and  simple:  First,  there  must 
be,  of  course,  a  contract  or  agreement  between  those 
nations  who  are  willing  to  join  the  League;  it  is  intended 
that  this  contract  or  treaty  shall  relate  only  to  those 
nations  who  are  parties  thereto  and  such  disputes  as 
may  arise  between  them,  not  comprehending  any 
alUance  against  outside  powers,  or  any  effort  to  control 
them. 

The  disputes  which  may  arise  between  nations  have 
been  roughly  divided  into  two  classes — those  which  are 
capable  of  being  decided  by  a  court  according  to  known 
rules  of  law  or  equity,  called  justiciable  questions,  and 
those  which  are  not  capable  of  being  so  decided  because 
there  is  no  law  applicable  thereto,  and  which  are  called 
non- justiciable  questions.  The  interpretation  of  a 
treaty  or  the  ascertainment  of  a  boundary  line  would  be 
examples  of  justiciable  questions;  whether  one  nation 
should  exclude  the  citizens  of  another  from  its  territory 
or  should  be  permitted  to  acquire  territory  in  close 
proximity  to  another,  would  be  non-justiciable,  some- 
times called  poUtical  questions.  It  is  proposed  that  all 
justiciable  questions  shall  be  submitted  to  an  inter- 
national court  for  hearing  and  judgment  and  that  all 
other  questions  shall  be  submitted  to  an  international 
council  of  conciliation  for  hearing  and  recommendation, 
before  hostiUties  shall  be  commenced  by  either  party 
to  the  controversy. 

The  program  does  not  contemplate  that  the  members 
of  the  League  shall  be  bound  to  accept  the  decision  of  the 
court  in  the  one  case,  or  the  recommendation  of  the 
council  of  conciliation  in  the  other;  they  are  left  free 
to  go  to  war  if  they  believe  their  interests  demand  that 
they  should  do  so.  The  only  restraint  to  be  laid  upon 
them  is  that  they  shall  not  commence  hostilities  until 
they  have  stated  their  case  to  an  impartial  body  and 
thus  have  stated  it  to  the  world  and  have  given  time 
for  consideration  and  decision.    This  is  surely  not  an 


ENFORCED  PEACE  15 

unreasonable  proposition.  If  a  case  is  not  good 
enough  to  bear  stating  it  is  not  good  enough  to  be 
supported  by  force  of  arms. 

In  order  to  assist  in  the  decision  of  judicial  questions 
it  is  further  proposed  that  there  shall  be  conferences 
held  at  regular  intervals  so  that  disputed  questions  of 
law  between  nations  may  be  settled  and  it  may  be  known 
in  advance  what  legal  principles  will  be  applied  by  the 
court  which  hears  the  cases. 

Finally  that  the  nations  may  really  be  restrained  from 
commencing  hostilities  until  their  cases  have  been  sub- 
mitted and  examined,  it  is  proposed  that  all  members  of 
the  League  shall  agree  that  any  power  which  violates 
this  provision  of  the  treaty  shall  be  at  once  opposed  by 
all  the  other  members,  with  both  their  economic  and 
military  forces. 

What  are  some  of  the  principal  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  these  proposals? 

It  is  said  that  no  nation  ought  to  agree  to  submit  all 
justiciable  questions  to  an  international  court  but 
should  reserve  therefrom  questions  aflfecting  vital  in- 
terest, honor  or  independence,  which  of  course  means 
that  any  question  may  be  reserved  at  the  option  of 
the  contracting  power,  these  terms  are  so  inclusive  and 
so  elastic. 

The  principal  objection  urged  to  the  judicial  settle- 
ment of  international  questions  of  this  character  is  that  a 
nation  should  not  surrender  its  freedom  of  action  in  any 
important  matter.  Those  who  take  this  view  have  an 
exaggerated  conception  of  nationality;  they  seem  to 
think  that  their  country,  like  the  ancient  kings,  can  do 
no  wrong,  and  that  a  claim,  unsupportable  by  law  or 
morals,  may  properly  be  enforced,  if  the  nation  has  the 
power,  and  material  advantage  will  result. 

This  is  an  unworthy  conception  of  national  duty  and 
national  honor.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  nation,  as  of  an 
individual,  to  be  just. 


i6  ENFORCED  PEACE 

It  should  never  attempt  to  enforce  by  violence  a 
proposal  which  it  fears  to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  a 
court.  If  after  an  unfavorable  decision  it  feels  that  its 
best  interests  demand  that  it  should  enforce  its  claim 
by  war  it  is  left  free  to  do  so.  But  no  nation  would 
fear  to  allow  its  claim  to  be  examined  on  the  merits 
unless  it  -knew  it  to  be  unsustainable. 

There  is,  however,  another  objection  to  the  judicial 
settlement  of  all  international  disputes  which  is  more 
worthy  of  consideration.  This  is  that  there  exists  at 
the  present  time  no  competent  court  to  which  the 
nations  can  resort  with  confidence  that  their  cases  will 
be  judicially  considered  and  decided  in  accordance  with 
the  law  and  the  fact. 

When  a  case  is  now  submitted  to  judicial  decision,  a 
special  court  must  be  made  up  for  that  case,  and  as  the 
judges  are  ordinarily  selected  by  the  nations  concerned 
they  often  partake  more  of  the  character  of  advocates 
than  of  judges,  and  the  decision  is  really  made  by  one 
man,  the  umpire.  It  is  unsatisfactory  for  the  great 
questions  which  come  up  between  sovereign  powers  to 
be  disposed  of  by  the  judgment  of  one  man,  whose 
identity  is  unknown  in  advance  and  who  may  be  inex- 
perienced in  judicial  work.  Men  would  not  so  submit 
their  disputes,  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
nations  would  be  willing  to  do  so. 

It  is  essential  to  the  success  of  the  proposed  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  that  a  permanent  international  court 
shall  be  established,  so  that  there  may  be  a  permanent 
body  of  trained  jurists,  the  character  of  whose  work 
is  known  in  advance,  to  which  nations  will  be  wilhng  to 
resort  with  that  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  its  deci- 
sions which  is  essential  to  the  success  of  any  judicial 
body. 

The  fact  that  members  of  the  League  are  not  re- 
quired to  submit  to  the  decision  of  the  Court  when 
rendered,  but,  if  they  wish,  may  repudiate  it  and  still 


ENFORCED  PEACE  17 

settle  their  dijfferences  by  a  resort  to  war,  detracts  but 
little  from  the  force  of  what  has  been  said,  for  the  deci- 
sion of  the  court  would  in  most  cases  be  accepted, 
especially  by  the  United  States  which  on  account  of  its 
well-known  advocacy  of  judicial  settlement  would  be 
unlikely  to  repudiate  a  decision  unless  in  a  clear  case  of 
fraud. 

The  agreement  to  submit  non-justiciable  questions  to 
an  international  council  of  conciliation  is  likely  to  meet 
with  less  opposition  than  the  proposal  to  submit  all 
justiciable  questions  to  a  court  for  the  reason  that  the 
council  of  concihation  does  not  undertake  to  decide 
which  party  is  right  or  what  shall  be  done,  but  merely 
makes  a  recommendation.  While  for  the  reasons  al- 
ready indicated  some  nations,  and  particularly  the 
United  States,  would  feel  bound  to  conform  to  the  de- 
cision of  a  court,  there  would  not  be  the  same  feeling  in 
regard  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Board  of  Con- 
ciliation from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  The  ques- 
tions which  would  come  before  this  Board  would  be 
mostly  political  in  character;  there  would  be  no  question 
involving  the  decision  of  facts  or  the  application  of  law. 
The  recommendation  would  be  merely  the  judgment  of 
the  council  as  to  the  fair  and  equitable  thing  to  do 
under  all  the  circumstances ;  either  nation  might,  with- 
out stultification,  under  the  provisions  of  the  proposed 
League,  state  that  its  interests  were  so  vitally  involved 
that  it  felt  bound  to  reject  the  proposed  course  of  pro- 
cedure; the  parties  would  then  be  thrown  back  upon 
direct  negotiation,  or,  in  the  last  resort,  upon  the  trial  of 
strength. 

But  there  are  some  general  objections  to  the  whole 
plan  which  have  been  advanced  by  thoughtful  men 
and  which  deserve  a  frank  and  considerate  discus- 
sion. 

It  is  said  that  no  plan  which  calls  for  the  legal  settle- 
ment of  questions  arising  between  nations  can  be  sue- 


i8  ENFORCED  PEACE 

cessful  or  would  be  conducive  to  the  advancement  of 
civilization,  because  it  would  mean  that  the  status  quo 
must  be  maintained. 

In  this  connection  we  are  told  that  the  great  events 
in  the  world's  history  which  have  marked  the  progress 
of  civilization  have  come  about  not  by  law  but  by  force; 
that  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  our  own  nation 
to  have  existed  had  it  not  been  for  the  use  of  force; 
that  many  wrongs  have  been  committed  in  the  past 
which  as  yet  are  unredressed,  and  which  cannot  be 
redressed  by  legal  means.  Peoples  once  constituting 
nationalities,  and  now  under  the  control  of  alien  power, 
still  dream  of  national  greatness;  nations  which  have 
lost  a  portion  of  their  territory  Hve  in  the  hope  of 
regaining  it,  and  releasing  their  people  from  a  foreign 
yoke. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  strictly  judicial  method 
of  settling  international  controversies  would  prevent 
those  changes  which  must  inevitably  come  about  with 
the  rise  and  fall  of  nations.  Advancing  civilization, 
while  regardful  of  the  rights  of  sovereignties,  cannot 
be  kept  back  by  a  system  which  would  prevent  changes 
in  forms  of  government  or  the  transfer  of  territory 
where  necessary  to  the  highest  development  of  the 
world.  The  physical,  moral,  and  spiritual  welfare  of 
human  beings  may  have  a  higher  claim  than  the 
national  entity  which  for  the  moment  asserts  jurisdic- 
tion over  them. 

The  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  has  been 
framed  with  consideration  for  this  matter,  and  when 
closely  analyzed  is  seen  not  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
proper  development  of  this  character.  The  question 
whether  a  colony  or  a  portion  of  a  nation  should  be  en- 
titled to  its  independence  is  not  a  matter  for  judicial 
settlement,  nor  would  it  come  within  the  comprehension 
of  this  scheme,  or  of  any  international  institution.  Such 
peoples  would  be  as  free  afterwards  as  they  were  before 


ENFORCED  PEACE  19 

to  assert  their  independence  and  maintain  it  by  force  of 
arms,  if  they  could  do  so. 

Moreover,  other  questions  of  the  character  mentioned 
are  non- justiciable  and  the  recommendations  of  the 
council  of  conciliation  would  not  bind,  but  the  nations 
would  be  free  to  use  force  to  realize  their  aspirations,  if 
they  felt  the  necessity  of  doing  so. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  in  neither  of  these  particulars 
does  the  proposed  plan  offer  any  real  advance  over  the 
existing  condition ;  it  does,  however,  in  that  the  council 
of  conciliation  would  be  competent  to  consider  all  such 
questions  when  arising  between  independent  states,  and 
in  cases  where  the  alternative  would  be  a  devastating 
war,  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  nations  would 
be  willing  to  treat  with  regard  to  the  question  of  giving 
up  some  of  their  territory  for  a  proper  consideration 
or  granting  other  concessions  under  conditions  which 
would  make  for  the  best  interests  of  all  and  the  advance- 
ment of  civilization. 

In  short,  if  the  status  quo  ever  could  in  the  nature  of 
things  be  changed  peaceably  it  could  be  under  the  plan 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

However,  it  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  there  are 
limits  to  the  possibiUty  of  adjusting,  in  a  legal  way,  all 
questions  which  may  arise  so  long  as  there  are  backward 
nations,  unable  or  unwilling  to  maintain  law  and  order 
within  their  own  boundaries,  and  to  protect  the  rights  of 
others.  These  considerations  might  result  in  excluding 
certain  of  the  backward  nations  from  joining  a  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  for  a  time,  but  that  does  not  interfere 
with  the  proposal  that  the  enlightened  nations  shall 
now  make  such  a  contract,  and  agree  that  any  questions 
coming  up  between  them  shall  at  least  be  stated  and 
passed  upon  by  an  international  body  before  hostilities 
begin. 

Another  great  objection  to  the  plan  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  is  because  it  contemplates  the  use  of  force 


:20  ENFORCED  PEACE 

-to  restrain  nations  from  going  to  war  before  they  have 
complied  with  the  stipulations  mentioned. 

This  objection  is  urged  by  very  conscientious,  high- 
minded  people,  who  believe  that  all  war  is  wrong,  and 
that  it  can  never  be  right  to  do  evil.  They,  therefore, 
feel  bound  to  oppose  the  program  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace  because  they  think  it  involves  the  use  of  the 
very  thing  which  civiUzation  is  now  trying  to  avoid. 

Such  views  are  entitled  to  great  respect  but  rest  per- 
haps upon  a  mistaken  conception  of  what  the  League 
proposes.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  use  of  force  is 
necessary  in  dealing  with  law  breakers,  and  on  principle 
it  seems  to  make  little  difference  whether  these  are  men 
■or  nations.  As  the  evil-doer  must  be  restrained  by  force 
in  our  local  communities,  so  the  evil-doer  must  be  re- 
strained by  force  in  the  community  of  nations.  The 
force  which  is  proposed  to  be  used  by  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  economic  and  mihtary,  is  essentially 
police  force;  to  suppress  disorder,  not  to  create  it;  if 
not  used,  more  lives  would  be  taken,  more  damage 
done,  more  war  inflicted  upon  the  world  than  if  it  is  used. 

That  this  proposal  is  not  morally  wrong  is  main- 
tained by  so  eminent  an  authority  as  William  Penn,  a 
member  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  which  holds  more 
strongly  than  any  other  religious  body  that  all  war  is 
essentially  unchristian.  In  his  scheme  for  an  European 
Diet,  William  Penn  provided  that  a  sovereign  assembly 
consisting  of  representatives  from  the  various  nations 
should  decide  disputes  between  them  and  he  then  pro- 
ceeded thus: 

"If  any  of  the  Soveraignties  that  Constitute 
these  Imperial  States,  shall  refuse  to  submit  their 
Claim  or  Pretensions  to  them,  or  to  abide  and  per- 
form the  Judgment  thereof,  and  seek  their  Remedy 
by  Arms,  or  delay  their  Compliance  beyond  the 
Time  prefixt  in  their  Resolutions,  all  the  other 


ENFORCED  PEACE  21 

Soveraignties,  United  as  One  Strength,  shall  com- 
pel the  Submission  and  Performance  of  the  Sen- 
tence, with  Damages  to  the  Suffering  Party,  and 
Charges  to  the  Soveraignties  that  obliged  their 
Submission." 

This  is  high  authority  for  the  precise  proposition  ad- 
vanced by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  and  one 
which  all  of  us  can  safely  follow.  In  so  doing,  it 
is  a  satisfaction  to  feel  that  the  resort  to  arms  would 
probably  never  be  necessary.  The  mere  threat  of  the 
union  of  the  forces  of  all  the  other  nations  belong- 
ing to  the  League  would  be  enough;  if  that  were  not 
enough  the  economic  pressure  which  could  be  put  upon 
a  single  state  would  of  itself  be  suflScient  to  bring  her  to 
terms,  and  the  program  of  the  League  has  been  officially 
interpreted  to  mean  that  economic  pressure  shall  first 
be  applied  and  where  it  is  sufficient  mihtary  force  will 
not  be  necessary.  Here,  again,  we  have  the  authority 
of  William  Penn,  whose  wisdom  in  matters  of  state 
has  been  so  often  demonstrated.     He  proceeded: 

"To  be  sure,  Europe  would  quietly  obtain  the  so 
much  desired  and  needed  Peace,  to  Her  harassed 
Inhabitants;  no  Soveraignty  in  Europe  having  the 
Power  and  therefore  cannot  show  the  WiU  to  dis- 
pute the  Conclusion;  and,  consequently.  Peace 
would  be  procured,  and  continued  in  Europe." 

There  are  others  who  oppose  the  use  of  force  upon  a 
different  ground.  They  say  that  in  the  last  analysis, 
the  agreement  to  use  force  would  depend  solely  upon  the 
will  of  the  nations  concerned;  that,  therefore,  it  would 
be  no  more  effective  than  the  agreement  by  the  parties 
to  submit  their  disputes  to  the  court  or  to  the  council  of 
conciUation — they  might  as  well  refuse  the  one  as  the 
other.     This  objection,  however,  while  suggesting  that 


22  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  plan  might  not  work,  is  not  really  an  objection  to  the 
principle.  Of  course,  the  nations  might  refuse  to  unite 
their  forces,  but  with  the  growing  conception  that  the 
honor  of  a  nation  requires  it  to  keep  its  treaties,  and 
with  the  knowledge  that  the  agreement  alone  would 
have  a  deterring  effect  upon  a  recalcitrant  state,  it  iS  be- 
lieved that  the  objection  is  more  apparent  than  real. 

It  has  also  been  urged  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
tell  "when  one  nation  had  begun  hostiUties,  and  therefore 
when  the  obligation  had  arisen  on  the  part  of  the  others 
to  oppose  tjieir  forces  against  her;  also,  in  some  cases, 
it  might  be  difficult  to  determine  which  of  the  two  had 
first  begun  hostilities  and  therefore  which  was  to  be 
opposed  and  which  supported  by  the  other  members 
of  the  League.  These  are  practical  difficulties,  but 
they  do  not  affect  the  merits  of  the  plan. 

Another  objection  which  is  often  heard  is  that  the 
League  would  accomplish  nothing  if  it  could  come  into 
existence,  and  that  the  probabilities  are  very  great  that 
it  cannot,  because  no  sufficient  number  of  nations 
will  be  willing  to  adhere  to  it. 

That  the  League  would  accomplish  much  good,  if  it 
were  formed  by  a  number  of  first-class  powers,  there 
is  no  doubt.  It  is  true,  it  does  not  purport  to  pro- 
hibit war,  because  the  nations  are  at  hberty  to  go  to 
war  if  they  choose,  after  a  decision  of  the  court  or 
the  council  has  been  rendered,  but  they  wou,ld  not  be 
so  likely  to  do  so.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  safe  to  assume 
that  in  a  great  majority  of  cases  they  would  not  do  so. 
Time  is  not  only  the  great  healer  but  the  great  pacifier. 
Wars  frequently  spring  out  of  misunderstandings,  tem- 
porary in  character,  which  disappear  on  investigation, 
and  it  would  be  of  enormous  assistance  in  lessening  the 
tension  even  when  great  questions  of  national  policy  are 
involved,  if  the  matters  in  dispute  could  be  submitted  to 
impartial  examination.  Thus  the  misunderstandings 
would  be  cleared  up,  the  weakness  and  the  strength  of 


ENFORCED  PEACE  23 

both  sides  of  the  question  would  be  exposed  to  the  world, 
and  the  nation  whose  cause  was  shown  to  be  unjust 
would  probably  find  that  it  would  lose  more  by  bringing 
upon  itself  the  odium  of  mankind  in  endeavoring  to  en- 
force a  cause  already  determined  to  be  wrong  than  by 
submitting  to  the  inconvenience  of  accepting  the  de- 
cision. 

Whether  a  considerable  number  of  nations  would 
adhere  to  this  plan  within  the  near  future  no  one  knows, 
but  we  have  reason  to  believe  and  hope  that  they  will  do 
so.  This  conflict  has  shown  more  clearly  than  any 
other  that  war  inflicts  terrible  damage,  not  only  upon  the 
parties  directly  involved  in  it,  but  upon  neutrals,  and  it 
is  not  too  much  to  say  that  there  is  a  settled  determina- 
tion growing  in  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men,  in  both 
neutral  and  belligerent  countries,  that  at  the  close  of 
this  war  some  positive  steps  must  be  taken  to  better 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  world  and  that  the  great 
powers  should  be  willing  to  yield  such  small  part  of  their 
sovereignty  as  is  involved  in  adherence  to  the  plan  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

It  is  said  by  some  that  the  program  of  the  League  does 
not  go  far  enough.  Of  what  avail,  we  are  asked,  would 
it  be  to  provide  machinery  to  operate  only  on  members 
of  a  League  when  all  other  nations  not  members 
thereof  were  still  left  free  to  wage  war,  even  on  League 
members,  with  or  without  first  trying  peaceful  settle- 
ment? 

Of  course  it  is  true  that  nations  outside  of  the  League 
would  not  be  controlled  by  it,  but  a  League  is  worth 
while  even  if  it  does  no  more  than  tend  to  prevent  war 
between  a  very  few  members.  B ut  the  great  advantages 
to  be  gained  from  the  freedom  of  constant  menace  of  at- 
tack, and  the  danger  of  remaining  without  when  other 
nations  were  forming  closer  relations  within  would  soon 
compel  non-members  to  seek  admission  out  of  considera- 
tion for  safety,  if  nothing  more. 


24  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Everything  must  have  a  beginning,  and  the  modest 
proposals  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  seem  as  far  as 
it  is  wise  to  go  at  this  moment.  To  undertake  to  deal 
with  non-members  would  jeopardize  the  success  of  the 
undertaking,  for  it  would  place  its  members  in  the  po- 
sition of  agreeing  to  engage  in  wars  against  other 
nations  who  refused  to  submit  their  cases  to  a  court  or 
council,  when  they  had  not  agreed  to  do  so.  This  would 
be  too  serious  a  risk  of  a  foreign  war  for  some  nations, 
perhaps  for  the  United  States,  to  undertake  and  it 
would  probably  refuse  to  join  a  League  involving  this 
proposal. 

Finally  we  come  to  the  question  whether  the  United 
States  ought  to  join  such  a  League, 

There  are  many  who  assert  that  we  should  not,  and 
who  prophesy  that  the  people  of  this  country  will  never 
agree  to  it.  It  is  said  that  the  first  duty  of  the  United 
States  is  to  her  own  citizens;  that  we  ought  not  to  con- 
cern ourselves  with  European  affairs;  that  we  should  con- 
tinue to  avoid  being  drawn  into  this  war,  and  should 
enter  into  no  treaties  or  obhgations  which  might  involve 
us  in  such  conflicts  in  future,  and  we  are  of  course  re- 
minded of  Washington's  advice  that  we  should  avoid 
entangling  alliances.  It  is  also  said  that  to  enter  into 
such  a  League  as  here  proposed  would  be  especially 
objectionable  because  the  freedom  of  American  action 
would  be  restrained  at  the  will  of  foreign  powers. 

There  is  much  that  appeals  to  an  American  in  these 
observations.  We  like  to  think  of  our  country  as  being 
sufficient  unto  itself;  able  with  its  vast  territory  and 
unlimited  resources  to  supply  itself  indefinitely  with  all 
necessary  means  of  sustenance,  and  to  repel  foreign 
invasion,  should  it  be  attempted.  Would  it  not  be 
better  for  us  to  stand  aloof  from  the  nations  of  the  old 
world  and  work  out  our  own  destiny  without  entering 
into  leagues  or  poHtical  aUiances  with  them? 

These  considerations,  however,  fail  to  take  into  ac- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  25 

count  changing  conditions.  Our  relations  with  other 
nations  have  become  so  much  closer  than  formerly  that 
our  interests  can  no  longer  be  disassociated  from  theirs. 
The  distance  from  one  country  to  another  is  not 
measured  by  miles  but  by  ease  of  communication,  and 
the  means  of  travel  have  so  improved  in  the  last 
hundred  years  that  we  are  nearer  to  the  uttermost 
quarters  of  the  world  than  we  once  were  to  some  of 
our  neighbors.  This  has  led  to  closer  business  re- 
lations so  that  while  we  might  perhaps  be  able  to  sustain 
ourselves,  in  case  of  need,  we  are  dependent  in  great  de- 
gree for  our  comfort  and  prosperity  upon  other  nations, 
and  the  interruption  of  normal  commercial  intercourse 
brings  great  loss  upon  us.  It  is,  therefore,  of  great  im- 
portance to  us,  not  merely  because  of  our  interest  in 
mankind  but  because  of  our  interest  in  ourselves,  that 
world-devastating  wars  should  be  prevented. 

We  have  seen  in  the  course  of  the  last  few  months 
how  dangerous  a  great  war  may  be  to  neutrals,  and 
how  difficult  it  is  for  us  to  keep  from  being  drawn 
into  it.  It  would,  therefore,  be  the  best  self-protection 
for  the  United  States  to  lend  its  aid  to  some  plan  by 
which  world  peace  may  be  better  preserved. 

The  suggestion  that  the  United  States  might  find  it- 
self subject  to  the  dictation  and  coercion  of  foreign 
powers,  if  it  became  a  member  of  this  League,  is  without 
foundation. 

Of  course  the  United  States  would  thereby  agree  that 
it  would  not  commence  hostilities  against  another  mem- 
ber of  the  League  without  first  submitting  its  grievance 
to  a  court  or  council  of  conciliation,  and  if  it  violated 
this  provision  would  find  itseh  opposed  by  the  other 
members  of  the  League.  But  it  is  not  thinkable  that 
the  United  States  would  adopt  such  a  course  of  action. 
We,  least  of  all  nations,  should  refuse  td  submit  cur 
cause  to  the  examination  of  an  impartial  body — a 
method   of   adjustment   of   international   differences, 


26  ENFORCED  PEACE 

which  we  have  practised  ourselves  and  have  constantly 
urged  upon  the  world  throughout  the  whole  period  of  our 
national  existence.  When  we  had  submitted  our 
case  and  a  decision  had  been  rendered  we  should  be 
left  free  to  follow  any  course  we  should  then  deem 
best. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  shows  our  join- 
ing the  League  would  be  to  our  advantage  from  military 
and  economic  considerations. 

If  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  adhered  to  by  the 
principal  nations  of  the  world,  its  immediate  effect  will 
be  the"  reduction  of  armaments  for  the  reason  that  the 
nations  will  no  longer  have  to  be  "on  edge."  The 
commencement  of  hostilities  for  a  period  long  enough  to 
examine  the  question  and  render  a  decision,  which  could 
scarcely  be  less  than  a  year,  is  forbidden.  There  would, 
therefore,  not  be  the  possibility  of  sudden  descent  by  one 
nation  upon  another  without  warning.  This  would 
mean  that  there  would  not  have  to  be  that  instant  readi- 
ness to  repel  attack  which  some  of  the  nations  of  Europe 
have  felt  it  incumbent  upon  them  to  maintain. 

This  would  improve  the  situation  of  the  United  States 
in  the  possible  event  of  a  foreign  war  because  the  people 
of  this  country  will  never  consent  to  maintain  a  great 
standing  army  in  time  of  peace,  and  any  consideration 
which  tends  to  lessen  the  burden  of  armaments  abroad 
will  place  us  upon  more  of  an  equality  with  other  great 
powers. 

This  abatement  of  the  struggle  for  supremacy  in  a:r- 
mamentswillof  itself  enormously  improve  the  possibility 
of  peaceful  settlements.  Nations  which  are  not  in  in- 
stant readiness  to  fight  are  much  more  apt  to  turn  their 
thoughts  to  amicable  adjustment  than  those  which  are 
only  waiting  a  favorable  opportunity  to  strike  the  first 
blov:. 

But  there  is  another  and  a  far  nobler  reason  why  the 
United  States  ought  to  join  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 


Copyright,  Pirie  MacDonald,  Neuj  York 

OSCAR  S.  STRAUS.  A.B.,  LL.D. 
Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  27 

We  have  been  the  leader  in  the  cause  of  peaceful  inter- 
national settlements.  We  are  the  greatest  neutral  na- 
tion and  in  spite  of  our  differences  with  certain  of  the  bel- 
ligerents, our  disinterestedness  and  our  sense  of  justice 
are  recognized  abroad,  and  in  the  opinion  of  competent 
statesmen  across  the  water,  our  cooperation  at  this  great 
crisis  is  necessary  to  the  success  of  this  plan,  or  any  plan 
having  the  same  end  in  view.  If  now  we  should ' 
stand  aloof  from  a  great  undertaking  which  with 
our  help  could  be  successful  and  lead  the  world  a 
step  toward  the  firm  establishment  of  peace  we  would 
be  recreant  to  our  duty  and  fail  to  realize  our  great 
destiny. 

No  one  contends  that  the  program  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  is  perfect;  no  one  believes  that  it  will 
abolish  war  instantly,  even  among  its  members,  but  that 
is  no  reason  for  refusing  it  support.  We  do  not  con- 
demn our  educational  systems  because  they  have  not 
put  an  end  to  illiteracy,  or  our  rehgious  or  moral  in- 
stitutions because  there  is  still  evil  in  the  world;  we  try 
to  make  these  institutions  better.  The  question  is 
whether  the  estabhshment  of  the  program  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  will  on  the  whole  tend  to  prevent  war, 
and  tend  to  promote  harmony  and  good  will  among 
nations.     If  so,  we  should  give  it  our  support. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  will  be  of  value  in  the 
great  world  movement  toward  a  permanent  organiza- 
tion among  nations,  which  will  some  day  provide  for  the 
suppression  of  international  disorder  as  promptly  as 
disorder  is  now  suppressed  in  the  best  regulated  com- 
munities. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  A.B.,  LL.B.,  LL.D.,  Chair- 
man of  the  New  York  Public  Service  Commission, 
former  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  former 
U.  S.  Ambassador  to  Turkey,  member  of  the  per- 


28  ENFORCED  PEACE 

manent  court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague,  etc., 
read  the  following  paper : 


PREPAREDNESS     AGAINST     THE     REBARBARIZATION     OF 
THE   WORLD 

Lord  Haldane,  the  Lord  High  ChanceUor  of  Great 
Britain,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  authority  upon 
international  relationship,  in  an  address  before  the 
American  Bar  Association  at  Montreal  in  September, 
1913 — eleven  months  before  the  war  began — said: 

"The  barbarism  which  once  looked  to  conquest  and 
the  waging  of  successful  war  as  the  main  object  of 
statesmanship  seems  as  though  it  were  passing  away. 
There  have  been  established  rules  of  international  law 
which  already  govern  the  conduct  of  war  itself  and  are 
generally  observed  as  binding  by  all  civilized  people 
with  the  result  that  the  cruelties  of  war  have  been 
lessened.  .  .  .  It  is  this  spirit  that  may  develop  as 
time  goes  on  into  a  full  international  'sittlichkeit.'" 

He  expressed  what  was  then  the  prevailing  opinion 
of  thoughtful  men  throughout  the  world.  Alas,  we  have 
all  experienced  a  rude  awakening  and  a  change  of  mind. 
Our  hopes  and  philosophies  respecting  the  progress  of 
civilization  and  the  maintenance  of  peace  have  been 
dashed  to  the  ground,  and  in  the  face  of  the  awful  and 
shocking  reaUties  we  have  been  compelled  to  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  more  effective  agencies  than  moral 
securities  and  aspirations  must  be  provided  in  the  future 
in  order  to  hold  in  check  the  unmoral  tendencies,  the 
greed  and  thirst  for  conquest  which  still  dominate  inter- 
national relationship.  We  have  learned  so  long  as  force 
sits  in  the  judgment-seat  of  some  nations,  force  must  sit, 
if  not  in,  certainly  behind,  the  judgment- seat  of  every 
other  nation  unless  they  can  come  to  an  agreement  to 
place  a  mightier  force  behind  the  judgment-seat  of  a 


ENFORCED  PEACE  29 

sufficiently  large  group  of  nations  that  will  combine  to 
maintain  peace  with  justice. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  in  a  recent  interview  said:  "Un- 
less mankind  learns  from  this  war  to  avoid  war,  the 
struggle  will  have  been  in  vain."  This  should  be  our 
hope  and  this  should  be  our  aim,  and  in  recognition  of' 
this  truth  we  are  assembled  to  instruct  public  opinion, 
to  prepare  our  people — and  through  them  our  govern- 
ment— to  take  its  share,  befitting  its  greatness  and  its 
responsibilities  to  itself  and  to  the  world,  in  the  inter- 
national reconstruction  which  must  follow,  unless  we 
and  they  are  willing  to  suffer  the  evils  and  devastations 
of  recurring  wars  tending  to  the  rebarbarization  of  the 
world.  Men  have  learned  to  check  violence  within 
nations  and  must  find  some  way  to  suppress  or  largely 
reduce  violence  between  nations. 

In  the  days  of  slow  wars  an  interval  separated  a  state- 
of  peace  from  the  state  of  war.  Nations  could  more 
readily  postpone  their  preparations  for  war  until  the  war 
clouds  threatened  and  could  postpone  the  raising  of 
armies  until  the  time  approached  for  using  them;  but 
all  this  is  changed.  The  present  war  began  after  an  ul- 
timatum of  only  a  few  days,  and  immediately  thereaf ter- 
the  armies  of  Germany  were  on  the  march  through 
Belgium. 

At  three  different  periods  during  the  last  twenty-eight 
years  I  saw  at  close  range  at  Constantinople  the  play  of 
the  diplomacy  of  the  great  European  powers.  With 
rare  exception,  in  important  vital  issues,  the  diplomacy 
of  the  stronger  nations  won  out  and  that  of  the  weaker 
nations  correspondingly  failed. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  believe  that  armies  and  navies  lie 
useless  when  not  engaged  in  war.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
armies  and  navies  are  the  potential  forces  behind  di- 
plomacy when  vital  interests  are  at  stake  and  their  po- 
tentiality is  in  the  background  and  often  the  controlling 
factor  in  obviating  the  development  of  conditions  that. 


so  ENFORCED  PEACE 

lead  to  war  or  that  project  nations  into  war,  even  at 
times  against  their  own  will. 

Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  by  failing  to  see  that  this 
war  has  let  loose  throughout  the  world  the  spirit  of 
conquest,  the  hunger  for  territory,  and  the  rivalry  for 
domination  on  land  and  sea.  Even  our  efforts  to 
maintain  our  neutraUty  instead  of  making  for  us  friends 
have  made  us  envied,  distrusted,  and  by  some  nations 
hated.  But  entirely  apart  from  the  menace  of  foreign 
attack,  if  we  are  to  be  an  effective  influence,  either  now 
or  hereafter,  in  the  promotion  or  maintenance  of  the 
peace  of  the  world,  the  measure  of  our  influence  will  cer- 
tainly not  be  in  proportion  to  our  weakness  but  in 
proportion  to  our  available  strength.  It  is  said  by  some 
that  to  enlarge  our  naval  and  military  forces  will  of  itself 
be  a  provocative  of  war  in  that  it  will  prompt  the  spirit 
of  militarism.  This  is  true  where  armaments  are  piled 
up  for  the  sake  of  domination  or  of  conquests,  but  arma- 
ments for  defense — subordinated  as  they  always  must  be 
imder  our  form  of  government  to  the  civil  power — are 
not  the  promoters  of  militarism  but  a  bulwark  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  reign  of  law  and  of  justice  and  for  the 
security  of  all  those  ideals  which  constitute  the  elements 
of  enlightened  and  progressive  civilization. 

A  war  such  as  this  could  never  have  engulfed  the 
nations,  had  their  international  relationship  and  founda- 
tions been  rightfully  constructed.  For  many  years 
past,  and  especially  since  the  Franco-Prussian  War, 
historians,  statesmen,  and  publicists  foresaw  and  fore- 
told that  a  condition  of  armed  peace  with  its  ever-in- 
creasing burden  of  competitive  armaments  would  in- 
evitably lead  to  war  unless  a  reconstruction  could  be 
effected  by  the  embattled  nations  of  Europe  upon  the 
basis  of  peace. 

Count  Benedetti,  the  French  Ambassador  at  the 
court  of  Berlin,  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
War,  in  his  "Studies  in  Diplomacy,"  distinctly  stated  at 


ENFORCED  PEACE  31 

the  time  that  the  Triple  Alliance  of  1879  between  Ger- 
many and  Austria,  to  which  Italy  was  joined  in  1882, 
would  necessarily  be  a  portent  of  war,  or  to  use  his 
words: 

**  It  is  in  fact  armed  peace  that  the  three  powers  have 
organized,  and  can  peace  under  arms  be  lasting?" 

The  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  in  1897,  made  the  state- 
ment  that  "The  federation  of  the  European  nations  is 
the  germ  of  the  only  possible  mutual  relation  of  these 
States  which  can  protect  civihzation  from  the  frightful 
eflfects  of  war." 

The  German  Chancellor  in  his  speech  in  the  Reichstag 
on  August  19,  1915,  said,  "An  unassailable  Germany 
would  give  us  a  new  Europe,"  and  then  adds,  "An 
England  able  to  dictate  its  will  to  the  world  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  peace  of  the  world." 

He  was  right  in  his  diagnosis  when  appHed  to  his 
enemy  but  wrong  when  appHed  to  his  own  country. 
His  statement  is  itself  an  additional  proof  that  the 
dominance  of  power  is  not  safe  in  the  hands  of  any  one 
nation,  and  can  only  be  entrusted  for  the  security  of 
each  nation  in  the  hands  of  the  united  nations. 

It  is  quite  the  vogue  now  to  refer  with  ridicule  to  the 
two  Hague  conferences  and  to  the  efforts  made  to  avert 
the  catastrophe  toward  which  Europe  was  so  rapidly 
drifting.  The  tendencies  were  in  two  diametrically  op- 
posite directions  which  have  been  graphically  described 
as  Utopia  and  Hell.  If  the  pacifists,  who  animated  and 
encouraged  their  governments  to  participate  in  the 
peace  conferences  at  the  Hague  in  1899  and  1907  and 
who  looked  with  hopefulness  upon  the  results  that  would 
follow,  have  met  with  disappointment,  certainly  they 
have  not  fallen  farther  away  from  the  realization  of  their 
ideals  than  have  the  miUtarists  in  the  condition  of  hope- 
lessness and  remoteness  of  results  they  aimed  speedily 
to  achieve  by  the  war  which  now  engulfs  the  world. 
In  other  words,  the  failure  of  the  miUtarists  has  certainly 


32  ENFORCED  PEACE 

been  as  decisive  and  infinitely  more  appalling  than  has 
been  the  failure  of  the  peace  advocates  in  achieving 
their  end. 

This  world  war  is  a  distinct  proof  that  neither 
pacifism  without  wig^f,  nor  might — unless  dominated  by 
right — can  be  effectual  in  securing  a  permanent  peace. 

As  we  survey  the  history  of  nations  we  find  three 
distinct  methods  of  world  organization  which  were  de- 
eloped,  tried,  and  found  wanting.  The  first  of  these 
was  the  dominance  of  nations  by  great  world  powers 
such  as  Greece  under  Alexander,  whose  invincible 
phalanxes  dominated  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  The 
disciplined  power  of  Rome  which  supplanted  that  of 
Greece  was  another  example.  But  as  Greece  was  sup- 
planted by  Rome,  so  Rome  in  turn  was  overthrown  by 
the  onrush  of  the  northern  barbarians. 

Following  the  Napoleonic  wars  there  was  developed 
a  second  method  of  keeping  the  peace — the  system  of 
the  Balance  of  Power  and  of  the  Concert  of  Europe 
under  which,  instead  of  one  dominant  nation,  several 
nations  united  together  in  offensive  and  defensive 
aUiances. 

This  plan  developed  in  our  day  in  a  third  arrange- 
ment by  which  it  was  hoped  that  peace  and  order  would 
be  maintained  among  the  nations  through  group  al- 
liances; namely,  the  Triple  Alliance  on  the  one  side  and 
the  Triple  Entente  on  the  other.  This  Dual  arrange- 
ment dividing  Europe  into  two  vast  and  powerful  camps 
it  was  hoped  would  have  the  effect  which  is  epitomized 
in  the  expression  that  "one  sword  will  keep  the  other 
in  its  scabbard." 

But  this  war  proves  that  it  has  had  a  contrary  effect; 
it  has  multiphed  the  swords  on  both  sides,  it  has  de- 
veloped militarism  as  never  before,  and  has  piled  up 
those  crushing  armaments  that  are  to-day  clashing 
against  one  another  in  the  most  frightful  and  bloody 
war  in  all  history. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  S3 

These  several  methods  and  plans  from  Alexander  the 
Great  to  William  II  each  in  turn  collapsed  with  increas- 
ing frightfulness.  They  were  built  upon  false  founda- 
tions; they  were  built  as  strongholds  for  war  and  not  as 
strongholds  for  peace.  It  follows  by  the  hght  of  the 
logic  of  history  that  for  the  future  the  world  must  seek 
other  methods  than  such  as  have  failed  so  woefully  to 
maintain  righteous  peace.  It  must  be  a  righteous  peace, 
for  peace  to  be  lasting  must  be  founded  on  justice  and 
respect  for  law. 

Any  future  plan  to  be  lasting  must  take  into  consider- 
ation the  two  antagonistic  schools  regarding  the  applica- 
tion of  moral  principles  to  international  affairs,  and  in  so 
doing  reconstruct  international  relationship,  not  as  here- 
tofore exclusively  on  the  basis  of  war,  but  dominantly 
on  the  basis  of  peace.  This  cannot  be  done  by  the 
dominance  of  a  single  power.  That  method  has  been 
tried  and  has  failed.  It  cannot  be  done  by  a  division  of 
power.  That  also  has  proved  a  failure.  It  must  be 
done  by  a  unity  of  power;  by  placing  the  might  of  the 
united  nations  as  guardians  of  the  rights  of  each  nation, 
on  the  same  principle  as  we  constitute  the  joint  power  of 
the  forty-eight  states  of  our  Union  as  the  guardian  of  the 
right  of  each  state. 

While  "righteousness  exalteth  a  nation,"  the  present 
war  gives  incontrovertible  proof  that  righteousness  will 
not  protect  a  nation  unless  all  other  nations  are  likewise 
exalted  by  righteousness.  When  that  time  arrives  we 
shall  have  reached  the  millennium  which  from  present 
indications  is  sufficiently  remote  to  justify  a  search  for 
ways  and  means  that  will  serve  the  purpose  of  the  wc 
in  the  intervening  time. 

It  is  a  fact,  which  we  would  deceive  ourselves  in  failing 
to  recognize,  that  fundamental  changes  in  the  progress 
of  mankind  have  rarely  if  ever  been  possible  save  by 
war  or  as  a  sequel  to  war.  The  history  of  the  nations 
from  the  Armageddon  to  the  invasion  of  Belgium  teaches 


34  ENFORCED  PEACE 

that  war  will  not  be  banished  until  the  leading  and  more 
powerful  nations  become  civilized  enough  to  create  an 
organization  that  will  not  only  induce  but  will  force  re- 
sort to  other  means  than  war  and  that  will  be  able  to  im- 
pose necessary  and  fundamental  changes  without  war. 

The  greatest  curse  of  war  is  that  it  settles  international 
diflferences  by  the  force  of  might  and  not  by  the  arbitra- 
ment of  right,  and  when  so  settled  it  will  continue  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past  to  breed  war.  National  weakness 
does  not  make  for  peace.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  world 
is  at  present  constituted,  it  invites  a  disregard  for  funda- 
mental right;  it  invites  aggression  and  war.  Power  and 
preparedness  within  limitation  have  a  restraining  in- 
fluence and  are  most  helpful  in  leading  controversies  to 
settlement  by  peaceful  negotiations.  A  nation  without 
power  is  compelled  to  submit  either  to  conquest  or  to 
humiliating  conditions.  When  vital  interests  arise  be- 
tween strong  and  weak  nations  they  are  more  likely  to 
lead  to  war  than  when  they  arise  between  two  strong 
nations.  We  need  not  look  far  for  examples  for  this 
unfortunate  condition.  The  present  war  in  its  origin 
affords  a  striking  instance. 

Many  plans  have  been  devised  but  no  one  in  my 
judgment  has  laid  a  better  foundation  for  international 
peace  than  the  one  that  has  been  adopted  by  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace.  Herbert  Spencer  in  his  "Principles 
of  Sociology"  some  thirty  years  ago  stated: 

"A  federation  of  the  highest  nations  exercising 
supreme  authority — ^may,  by  forbidding  wars  between 
any  of  its  constituent  nations,  put  an  end  to  the  re- 
barbarization  which  is  continually  threatening  civiUza- 
tion." 

Some  such  plan  was  recommended  by  Sir  Edward 
Grey  and  proposed  by  him  to  Germany  as  a  safeguard 
against  aggression  on  the  part  of  the  Triple  Entente,  on 
July  30,  1914.  This  proposal  was  embodied  in  a  tele- 
gram to  the  British  Ambassador  at  Berlin.     He  said: 


ENFORCED  PEACE  35 

"If  the  peace  of  Europe  can  be  preserved  and  the 
present  crisis  safely  passed,  my  own  endeavor  will  be  to 
promote  some  arrangement  to  which  Germany  could  be 
a  party  by  which  she  could  be  assured  that  no  aggressive 
or  hostile  policy  would  be  pursued  against  her  or  her 
aUies  by  France,  Russia,  and  ourselves  jointly  or  sep- 
arately. I  have  desired  this  and  worked  for  it  as  far  as 
I  could  through  the  last  Balkan  crisis,  and  Germany  hav- 
ing a  corresponding  object  our  relations  sensibly  im- 
proved. The  idea  has  hitherto  been  too  Utopian  to 
form  the  subject  of  definite  proposals,  but  if  this  present 
crisis,  so  much  more  acute  than  any  that  Europe  has 
gone  through  for  generations,  be  safely  passed,  I  am 
hopeful  that  the  relief  and  reaction  which  will  follow 
may  make  possible  some  more  definite  approachment 
between  the  powers  than  has  been  possible  hitherto." 

Unfortunately  this  proposal  was  only  put  forward  at 
the  eleventh  hour  when  misrepresentation,  irritation, 
and  suspicion  had  poisoned  the  air;  all  of  which  em- 
phasizes the  necessity  that  arrangements  for  peace  must 
be  made  in  advance  not  only  of  mobilization  but  of  the 
irritations  which  produce  war,  and  that  such  arrange- 
ments must  be  made  with  the  same  precautions  and 
preparedness  as  the  nations  have  hitherto  given  to 
preparations  for  war. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  out  of  the  extreme  suffering  and 
sacrifices  that  this  war  imposes  there  may  arise  supreme 
wisdom  among  the  nations.  Either  there  will  be  a  new 
day  or  a  darker  night;  all  depends  upon  how  this  war 
will  end  and  what  bulwarks  the  nations  will  erect  against 
future  cataclysms  such  as  we  are  now  witnessing. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  repeat,  America  though  not  a 
belligerent  is  equally  concerned  in  the  world's  peace  as 
are  the  nations  at  war.  We  must  take  a  part  in  the  re- 
construction. Norman  Angel  significantly  says,  that  if 
we  do  not  mix  in  the  European  affairs  Europe  will  mix  in 
our  affairs.   We  owe  it  to  ourselves,  to  humanity,  and  to 


36  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  world  to  lend  our  best  efforts  and  to  make  our  fullest 
contribution  to  that  reconstruction  which  must  come. 

Civilization  has  been  undermined.  The  temples  of 
the  false  gods  have  tumbled  into  ruin.  The  most  bar- 
baric and  colossal  war  has  not  put  God,  but  man,  on 
trial.  It  has  put  existing  international  relationship  on 
trial;  it  has  put  expediency  and  the  doctrine  of  might  on 
trial.  It  has  revealed  the  fact  that  we  cannot  have  one 
standard  of  morals  within  a  nation  and  a  different  and 
lower  standard  as  between  nations. 

All  the  machinery  that  has  been  devised  in  the  past 
for  the  maintenance  of  peace  has  been  left  to  volunteer 
effort.  The  resort  to  treaties  of  arbitration,  to  the  Hague 
Tribunal,  to  the  Commissions  of  Inquiry,  was  volun- 
cary.  We  must  at  least  put  forth  as  much  compelling 
force  for  the  preservation  of  peace  as  has  heretofore  been 
put  forth  for  the  preparations  for  war.  Let  us  hope 
that  out  of  the  bloody  trenches  will  arise  a  new  inter- 
national conscience  which  will  put  no  geographical  limi- 
tations upon  right  and  justice. 

Instead  of  a  general  staff  in  each  nation  preparing  for 
war,  there  should  be  a  general  staff  of  the  united  nations 
preparing  for  peace.  Bluntchli  was  perhaps  right  in  his 
opinion  that  the  federation  of  Europe  would  be  easier  to 
bring  about  than  was  that  of  the  German  Empire. 
Federation  gives  cause  for  hope — hope  that  out  of  the 
agonies  and  appalling  sacrifices  of  this  war  may  arise  a 
higher  sense  of  international  justice  and  a  nobler  hu- 
manity under  the  protecting  shield  of  the  united  powers 
of  the  united  nations. 

Edward  A.  Filene,  President  of  William 
Filene's  Sons  Co.,  of  Boston,  Director  of  the  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  and  active 
in  commercial,  civic,  and  political  work,  evoked 
the  most  remarkable  demonstration  of  the  con- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  37 

ference  when,  after  relating  the  parable  of  the 
Good  Samaritan  and  proposing  that  this  country 
should  play  the  part  of  the  Good  Samaritan  to 
the  rest  of  the  world  added : 

"But  it  is  our  first  duty  to  rid  the  Jericho  Road  of 
thieves." 

Mr.  Filene's  address  follows: 

THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE  AND  THE  SOUL  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES 

This  war  will,  on  the  one  hand,  determine  whether  or 
not  democracy  can  survive  in  Europe,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  will  determine  whether  or  not  democracy  de- 
serves to  survive  in  America.  The  efifect  of  this  war 
upon  our  nation  is  destined  to  be  just  as  profound, 
though  more  quietly  produced,  as  though  we  were  among 
the  belligerents.  While  war  is  hardening  Europe 
through  sacrifice,  we  may  let  war  soften  America 
through  prosperity  and  find  ourselves  at  the  end  of  the 
war  "a  peaceful  nation  unprepared  for  peace."  I  am 
convinced  that  the  future  of  American  democracy  and 
the  very  soul  of  our  nation  is  at  stake  in  the  part  we  play 
in  the  present  crisis. 

This  war  has  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  United 
States  has  become  a  world  power.  It  has  compelled 
America  suddenly  to  think  in  terms  of  world  civilization. 
Carefully  sheltered  from  the  recurrent  storm  and  stress 
of  European  poUtics  by  our  geographical  location  and 
our  traditional  policy  of  isolation,  we  have,  as  a  nation, 
grown  both  powerful  and  rich,  but  the  war  has  shaken 
down  about  our  ears  the  House  of  Isolation.  We  have 
learned  that  isolation  from  world  affairs  is  henceforth 
impossible,  and  that  cooperation  in  world  affairs  is 
imperative.     But  we  are  groping  for  a  program.     The 


38  ENFORCED  PEACE 

bigness  of  world  demands  makes  hesitant  a  nation 
accustomed  to  national  demands  only. 

But  international  problems  are  fundamentally  the 
same  as  individual  problems,  except  they  are  bigger. 
To  find  a  program  for  relations  between  nations,  we 
need  but  to  apply  the  principles  of  enhghtened  relations 
between  men.  In  fact,  I  know  no  better  guide  for 
American  action  in  the  present  crisis  than  a  very  old 
story  about  the  duty  one  individual  owes  another.  The 
story  is  famihar  to  you. 

"  A  certain  man  went  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho, 
and  fell  among  thieves,  who  stripped  him  of  his  rai- 
ment, and  wounded  him,  and  departed,  leaving  him  half 
dead.  And  by  chance  there  came  down  a  certain  priest 
that  way;  and  when  he  saw  him,  he  passed  by  on  the 
other  side.  And  likewise  a  Levite,  when  he  was  at  the 
place,  came  and  looked  on  him,  and  passed  by  on  the 
other  side.  But  a  certain  Samaritan,  as  he  journeyed, 
came  where  he  was;  and  when  he  saw  him,  he  had  com- 
passion on  him,  and  went  to  him,  and  bound  up  his 
wounds,  pouring  in  oil  and  wine,  and  set  him  on  his  own 
beast,  and  brought  him  to  an  inn,  and  took  care  of  him. 
And  on  the  morrow  when  he  departed,  he  took  out  two 
pence,  and  gave  them  to  the  host,  and  said  unto  him, 
'Take  care  of  him:  and  whatsoever  thou  spendest  more, 
when  I  come  again,  I  will  repay  thee,'  'Which  now  of 
these  three,  thinkest  thou,  was  neighbor  unto  him  that 
fell  among  the  thieves? '  And  he  said,  *  He  that  shewed 
mercy  on  him,'  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him, '  Go,  and  do 
thou  likewise,'" 

To-day  the  world  is  wounded,  CiviUzation  has  fallen, 
bruised  and  beaten  by  the  roadside.  There  are  only  a 
few  nations  far  enough  removed  from  the  conflict  to  be 
able  to  go  in  peace  along  the  highway.  Of  all  these 
nations,  we  are  the  most  powerful.  The  United  States 
may  take  either  of  two  attitudes  in  the  present  crisis. 
Like  the  Levite,  it  may  do  the  selfishly  safe  thing,  pre- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  39 

serving  merely  its  own  comfort  and  safety,  or  like  the 
Samaritan,  it  may  let  the  unfortunate  situation  in  which 
the  world  now  finds  itself  awaken  it  to  the  truth  that 
strength  owes  a  debt  to  weakness  and  that  order  owes  a 
debt  to  disorder. 

We  have  come  to  a  time  when  the  Good  Samaritan  is, 
in  theory  at  least,  accepted  as  an  illustration  of  the  min- 
imum social  respbnsibiUty  that  any  civilized  man 
must  accept.  The  Good  Samaritan  is  the  classical 
example  of  remedial  charity  prompted  by  pity.  The 
millions  of  dollars  we  have  given  to  relief  funds  might 
indicate  that  the  United  States  has  adequately  played 
the  role  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  but  I  am  convinced  that 
were  this  parable  stated  to-day,  it  would  not  limit 
the  action  of  the  Good  Samaritan  to  dressing  the 
wounds  and  paying  the  hotel  bill  of  the  victim,  but 
would  have  him  start  a  practical  movement  for  ridding 
the  Jericho  Road  of  outlaws,  instituting  adequate  poHce 
protection,  and  making  the  road  a  safe  avenue  for 
travel.  In  other  words,  remedial  charity  is  no  longer  a 
complete  answer  to  give  to  suffering.  We  must  add 
preventive  measures. 

The  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  therefore,  sug- 
gests two  fines  of  action  for  the  United  States.  It  sug- 
gests refief  measures;  and  we  ought  to  give  of  our  wealth 
to  the  point  of  sacrifice  in  the  relief  of  the  immediate 
suffering  caused  by  this  war.  But  it  suggests  also  that 
relief  measures  are  not  enough,  that  it  is  a  fine  thing  to 
organize  a  wrecking  crew,  but  that  it  is  even  more  val- 
uable to  prevent  a  wreck.  Hand  in  hand,  therefore, 
with  our  reUef  measures  as  a  nation,  it  is  our  duty  to  do 
our  share  in  helping  the  world  put  into  operation  some 
plan  that  will  make  war  less  probable  and  will,  in  the 
future,  to  some  extent  at  least,  prevent  the  suffering  we 
are  now  trying  to  reUeve. 

We  are  met  to-day  to  advocate  the  estabUshment  of  a 
League  of  Nations  to  enforce  peace  by  a  common  use  of 


40  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  economic  and  military  power  of  its  members  as  the 
one  practical  preventive  program.  I  wonder  if  in  urg- 
ing that  the  United  States  take  vigorous  initiative  action 
in  behalf  of  this  proposal,  we  fully  realize  that  by  so 
doing  our  nation  would  not  only  be  rendering  to  a  war- 
shadowed  world  the  service  of  constructive  statesman- 
ship, but  would  also  be  exercising  in  its  own  behalf  the 
soundest  economic,  political,  and  spiritual  foresight. 

The  United  States  could,  in  no  way,  write  a  better  in- 
surance poUcy  for  its  future  material  prosperity  than  by 
bending  every  efifort  toward  the  estabUshment  of  some 
international  plan  that  would  make  war  less  probable, 
for  if,  at  the  end  of  this  war,  the  nations  of  Europe  are 
compelled  to  enter  once  more  an  extravagant  rivalry  in 
armaments,  the  whole  business  competition  of  the  world 
will  become  so  complicated  and  destructive  that  our  own 
material  prosperity  will  hang  in  the  balance. 

The  United  States  could,  in  no  way,  display  keener 
political  foresight.  For  the  time  has  passed  when  the 
United  States  can  be  a  law  unto  itself.  The  United 
States  with  its  great  wealth  and  power  is  a  responsible 
citizen  in  the  community  of  nations.  Either  it  must 
consciously  take  its  place  now  as  a  world  power  or  it  will 
later  be  dragged  reluctantly  at  the  heels  of  forces  and 
fears  which  it  cannot  control.  It  is  better  freely  and  of 
our  own  accord  to  prepare  ourselves  to  answer  the  call  to 
world  responsibility  and  world  duty  than  to  be  driven  in 
fear  half  to  prepare  ourselves  for  defense  alone. 

The  United  States  could,  in  no  way,  display  greater 
spiritual  foresight  than  by  cooperating  with  the  nations 
of  the  world  in  preventing  those  recurring  floods  of  war 
that  over  night  sweep  away  so  many  important  results 
of  generations  of  civilized  effort. 

Even  before  the  war,  we  were,  as  a  nation,  at  the 
crossroads  in  our  spiritual  development — using  the  word 
spiritual  in  its  broadest  sense.  In  the  physical  conquest 
of  the  continent,  we  paid  the  price  of  an  over  emphasis 


ENFORCED  PEACE  41 

on  the  material  side  of  life,  an  inevitable  by-product  of 
every  pioneer  period.  But  when  a  nation  blazes  its  last 
trail  and  passes  its  last  frontier,  unless  the  spirit  of  con- 
quest that  marked  the  period  of  the  physical  establish- 
ment of  its  cities,  its  farms,  its  factories,  and  its  railways 
can  be  turned  into  the  spiritual  development  of  its 
people,  it  is  due  for  a  dechne.  The  very  virtues  of  a 
nation's  youth  may  become  the  vices  of  a  nation's 
maturity. 

Our  fathers  laid  the  foundations  of  this  republic  in  the 
faith  that  the  political  and  social  order  that  they 
established  would  be  fundamentally  different  from  that 
of  old-world  states,  and  would  act  as  a  spiritual  leaven 
among  the  governments  of  earth.  We  have  been  so 
busy  clearing  forests,  estabUshing  cities,  erecting  fac- 
tories, and  building  railroads,  that  we  have  come  near 
forgetting  the  spiritual  and  social  responsibility  that  the 
tradition  of  our  fathers  laid  upon  us.  If  we  are  not  to 
prove  recreant  to  the  faith  of  the  men  who  founded  our 
nation,  we  must  recover  the  lost  thread  of  our  spiritual 
mission  as  a  people. 

This  war  has  given  us  an  opportunity  that  we  would 
have  been  compelled  to  seek  in  other  and  smaller  fields 
had  not  the  war  confronted  us  with  a  great  duty.  I  be- 
Ueve  that  if  we  do  our  share  in  helping  the  nations  lay 
the  foundations  of  more  lasting  world  peace,  we  will  find 
that  this  war  has  given  us  the  opportunity  for  the  great- 
est moral  and  spiritual  adventure  of  our  national  life — 
an  adventure  in  which  we  shall  consciously  dedicate  the 
energies  of  our  nation  to  a  compelling  ideal,  pull  our- 
selves together  in  a  vast,  organized,  unselfish  expression, 
and  reawaken  the  spiritual  impulses  that  sustained  the 
founders  of  this  republic. 

If,  at  the  end  of  this  war,  we  fail  to  do  our  full  share 
toward  helping  to  secure  more  lasting  peace,  we  shall 
prove  recreant  to  a  great  duty  and  a  great  opportunity 
— probably  the  greatest  opportunity  that  has  ever  come 


42  ENFORCED  PEACE 

or  ever  will  come  to  us  as  a  people.  And  with  a  nation 
as  with  an  individual,  the  deUberate  avoidance  of  a 
great  duty  inevitably  results  in  a  distinct  loss  of  moral 
and  spiritual  power,  and  whenever  the  spiritual  power  of 
a  nation  is  seriously  diminished,  the  material  power  of 
the  nation  is,  in  time,  imdermined,  just  as  the  Roman 
Empire,  when  wealth  and  luxury  relaxed  its  sterner 
virtues  and  tore  down  its  moral  fabric,  declined  in  wealth 
and  power  and  passed  from  the  rank  of  a  first-class 
nation. 

But  if  so  great  emphasis  upon  the  spiritual  interests 
involved  seems  an  impractical  argument  for  a  business 
man  to  make,  it  is  fortunate  that  in  this  instance  the 
economic  argument  coincides  with  the  spiritual  argu- 
ment. For  the  definite  outlook  is  that,  unless  law  can 
be  substituted  for  war  to  the  greatest  practical  extent  in 
the  settlement  of  international  disputes,  the  United 
States  will  face,  after  the  conclusion  of  this  war,  one  of 
the  most  serious  and  extensive  business  reactions  it  has 
ever  experienced. 

The  grounds  for  predicting  this  reaction  are  clear. 
Europe  will  come  to  the  end  of  the  war  financially  de- 
pleted, at  the  one  time  when  she  needs  money  more 
urgently  than  ever  in  her  history.  The  interest  bills  on 
war  debts  and  the  expense  of  reestablishing  war- 
ravaged  industries  will  create  a  demand  for  funds  so  in- 
sistent that  Europe  will  be  compelled  to  make  an  un- 
heard-of onslaught  upon  markets  abroad;  for  the  sale  of 
goods  in  foreign  markets  will  be  the  most  available  and 
practical  method  by  which  Europe  can  secure  the  money 
she  needs. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  United 
States  will  be  the  first  to  suffer  from  the  severe  and  de- 
structive competition  that  will  result.  In  this  com- 
petition, the  United  States  will  be  forced  to  reckon  with 
a  new  efiiciency  in  Europe.  The  countries  that  have  so 
efl&ciently  organized  their  resources  for  war  will,  in  the 


ENFORCED  PEACE  43 

end,  so  organize  their  resources  for  production.  In  fact, 
reorganization  for  this  purpose  is  already  under  way. 
The  crushing  taxation  that  will  aggravate  the  poverty  of 
Europe  will  cause  the  peoples  of  Europe  to  share  with 
the  governments  of  Europe  their  imperative  desire  for  a 
trade  war  for  the  capture  of  markets,  as  a  means  toward 
rebuilding  the  industries  of  Europe,  once  more  putting 
the  nations  upon  a  normal  basis,  and  lessening  the 
necessity  for  such  crushing  taxation.  So  that  we  may 
expect  the  peoples  of  Europe  to  carry  over  into  the  con- 
test for  economic  reconstruction  much  of  the  spirit  of 
sacrifice  they  have  shown  in  the  contest  for  mihtary 
success. 

There  are  indications  that  by  the  end  of  the  war,  prac- 
tically all  of  the  nations  of  Europe  will  erect  high  tariff 
walls  which  will  seriously  restrict  trading  between  the 
nations  that  are  now  enemies.  Extensive  preparations 
are  aheady  under  way  for  splitting  Europe  into  two 
rival  business  camps  after  the  war,  just  as  to-day  it  is 
spht  into  two  rival  military  camps.  These  tariff  bar- 
riers will  be  another  force  causing  the  nations  of 
Europe  to  bend  every  effort  to  capture  the  trade  of 
the  United  States  and  other  neutral  nations.  If 
the  business  energy  of  Europe,  spurred  by  desperate 
necessity,  focusses  upon  the  neutral  markets  of  the  world, 
it  is  clear  that  the  South  American  and  other  neutral 
markets,  where  our  trade  has  been  none  too  large  in  the 
past,  will  be  an  increasingly  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
field  for  us.  Before  the  war,  I  strongly  advocated  the 
extension  of  our  trade  in  South  American  markets,  but 
the  present  outlook  is  that  in  those  markets  we  will  face 
a  competition  based  upon  such  urgent  necessity  for  sell- 
ing and  such  low  wage  labor  that  it  will  be  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  successfully  without  sacrificing  our 
present  standard  of  living. 

If  we  permit  the  nations  of  Europe  to  flood  the  mar- 
ket of  the  United  States  with  goods  made  by  workmen 


44  ENFORCED  PEACE 

who,  for  patriotic  reasons,  have  accepted  wages  de- 
cidedly lower  than  American  wages,  it  is  clear  that  not 
only  American  labor  but  American  capital  will  seriously 
suffer.  For  if  the  laboring  people  of  Europe  have  only 
their  time  to  sell,  and  if  the  employer  who  buys  that  time 
must  pay  such  a  price  for  it  as  will  leave  him  a  profit  in 
the  markets  where  he  sells  his  goods,  it  follows  that  the 
buying  power  of  the  entire  European  people  will  be  re- 
duced. Some  Americans  are  suggesting  a  high  pro- 
tective tariff  against  foreign  goods,  but  if  foreign  prod- 
ucts are  kept  from  our  markets,  how  can  Europe 
pay  for  what  she  will  want  from  us  when  the  war  is 
over? 

Then,  too,  if  we  attempt  to  protect  American  business 
from  the  necessity-driven  competition  of  Europe  by  the 
use  of  high  tariffs,  we  will  discover  that,  in  many  in- 
stances, nothing  short  of  a  prohibitory  tariff  will  shut 
out  the  low  wage  competition  that  we  fear.  But  pro- 
hibitory tariffs  would  mean  a  serious  loss  of  revenue  for 
our  government,  a  loss  which  we  would  probably  try  to 
make  up  by  an  increase  in  direct  taxation.  Adding  to 
such  a  loss  of  revenue  a  preparedness  program  demand- 
ing an  annual  expenditure  of  $500,000,000,  we  will 
probably  face  the  necessity  of  raising,  largely  by  direct 
taxation,  something  near  a  billion  dollars  annually  over 
and  above  what  we  are  now  raising  by  direct  taxation. 
Throughout  history,  governments  have  gone  down  in  an 
effort  to  levy  direct  taxes  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  classes. 
Whatever  may  be  our  individual  views  on  direct  taxa- 
tion, we  know  that  the  practical  result  of  any  effort  to 
raise  so  huge  a  sum  by  direct  taxation  will  result  in 
serious  class  strife. 

But  if  Europe  should  face  the  necessity  of  no  other 
expenditures  than  those  of  interest  bills  and  the  expense 
of  reconstructing  her  industries,  the  situation,  though 
extremely  difficult,  would  not  be  an  impossible  one. 
Unless  the  war  continues  for  so  long  as  to  upset  all 


ENFORCED  PEACE  45 

reasonable  calculations,  the  expense  of  the  war  will 
probably  represent  no  more  than  a  loss  of  four  or  five 
years  of  the  normal  production  of  Europe.  For  we 
must  remember  that  Europe  will  come  to  the  end  of  the 
war  with  an  adequate  labor  supply,  because  the  ex- 
tensive introduction  of  women  into  the  ranks  of  labor, 
which  has  taken  place  and  will  increasingly  take  place, 
will  make  up  the  loss  of  male  workers  through  the  de- 
struction of  war.  But,  if  at  the  end  of  this  war,  no 
method  but  war  is  left  for  the  settlement  of  future  dis- 
putes that  are  bound  to  arise  between  nations,  every 
nation  in  Europe  will  be  compelled  to  resort  to  a  rivalry 
in  armaments  more  extensive  and  more  expensive  than 
ever  before.  The  extent  to  which  any  nation  of  Europe 
will  arm  will  be  determined  not  by  what  that  nation  can 
reasonably  afford,  but  by  the  extent  to  which  the  other 
nations  of  Europe  arm'.  The  expense  of  such  a  rivalry 
in  armaments  added  to  the  interest  bills  on  war  debts 
and  the  expense  of  replacing  the  destruction  of  war,  will 
create  a  need  for  money  so  continuously  urgent  that  the 
trade  competition,  which  we  have  reason  to  fear,  will  not 
only  be  made  more  intense  and  more  destructive,  but 
will  continue  so  much  farther  into  the  future  that  no 
man  can  reasonably  predict  the  end  of  the  serious  busi- 
ness reaction  that  will  come  to  the  United  States,  in 
common  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 

We  display  a  superficial  grasp  of  modern  economic 
conditions,  if  we  think  American  prosperity  can  long 
exist  side  by  side  with  European  poverty.  The 
agencies  of  credit,  transportation,  and  exchange  have 
made  fluid  the  wealth  of  the  world.  President  James 
A.  Farrell,  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  in  a 
recent  address  to  a  group  of  representative  business  men 
at  New  Orleans,  recognized  this  truth  in  his  apt  state- 
ment that  "There  can  be  no  stable  prosperity  at  home 
unless  we  are  able  to  make  Uberal  sales  of  American 
goods  abroad." 


46  ENFORCED  PEACE 

I  am  convinced  that  the  United  States  is  due  for  some 
business  reaction,  even  though  the  rivalry  in  armaments 
be  made  unnecessary,  but  if  the  expense  of  rivahy  in 
armaments  could  be  materially  decreased,  the  reaction 
might  be  kept  within  such  bounds  that  we  might  reason- 
ably meet  it.  So  that  the  business  prosperity  of  America 
demands  that  we  do  not  "pass  by  on  the  other  side," 
but  that  we  take  a  constructively  helpful  attitude  in 
helping  the  world  make  war  less  probable  and  peace 
more  lasting. 

There  is  not  a  right  thinking  man  in  America  who 
would  not  be  willing  to  make  sacrifices  if  he  thought 
thereby  he  could  make  more  lasting  the  peace  of  the 
world.  But  the  average  man  is  at  a  loss  for  a  concrete 
program.  If  the  average  American  could  become  con- 
vinced as  to  what  is  the  next  practical  and  possible  step 
forward  in  the  substitution  of  law  for  war,  there  would 
be  no  question  about  his  support  of  the  proposal.  The 
best  practical  thinking  of  the  world,  as  well  as  the 
accumulated  experience  of  history,  indicates  that  the 
only  method  by  which  peace  may  be  made  more  secure 
is  by  substituting  law  for  war  among  nations  just  as  we 
have  substituted  law  for  war  among  individuals. 

The  substitution  of  law  for  war  among  individuals 
within  the  nations  has  meant  the  estabUshment  of  courts 
with  power  enough  behind  them  to  insure  their  opera- 
tion; it  has  meant  the  disarmament  of  the  individual 
and  the  creation  of  a  pohce  force,  as  the  only  body  with 
the  legal  right  to  use  force  in  the  maintenance  of  order. 
There  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  hope  that  the  nations 
of  the  world  will  go  that  far  at  this  time.  We  have  not 
gone  far  enough  in  international  matters  yet  to  expect 
either  the  disarmament  of  nations  or  the  creation  of  an 
international  army  and  navy  to  police  the  world. 

But  we  have  reached  the  point  where  we  may  reason- 
ably hope  that  the  community  of  nations  will,  at  the  end 
of  this  war,  do  what  every  primitive  commimity  sooner 


ENFORCED  PEACE  47 

or  later  does,  namely:  In  a  primitive  community,  before 
courts  and  police  have  been  created,  when  the  honor  of 
its  women  and  the  property  of  the  town  are  no  longer 
safe  from  outlaws,  all  men,  even  the  most  peace  loving, 
unite  in  forming  a  Vigilance  Committee,  in  which  they 
agree  to  combine  their  force  to  restrain  law-breakers  and 
maintain  the  peace  of  the  town. 

The  United  States  is  to-day  in  the  exact  position  of  a 
man  of  peace  in  a  frontier  community.  It  is  our  duty 
to  advocate  and  to  stand  ready  to  join  an  International 
Vigilance  Committee,  in  which  the  nations  shall  agree  to 
use  their  combined  powers,  both  economic  and  military, 
to  compel  any  nation  to  submit  its  grievance  for  exami- 
nation to  an  International  Court  or  Council  of  ConciHa- 
tion  before  declaring  war.  And  this  is  the  program  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace — not  a  proposal  to  disarm, 
not  a  proposal  to  organize  an  international  government, 
not  a  proposal  to  create  an  international  police,  not 
a  proposal  to  enforce  decrees,  but  simply  a  pro- 
posal that  the  nations  shall  join  in  enforcing  a  delay  in 
the  declaration  of  a  war  until  an  impartial  court  and 
the  public  opinion  of  the  world  have  had  a  chance  to 
examine  the  asserted  cause  of  war.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  if  every  supposed  cause  of  war  had  to  stand 
examination  before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  world,  nine 
out  of  every  ten  wars  would  be  prevented. 

To  the  duty  of  leadership  in  this  movement  we  are 
now  called;  and  in  urging  that  the  United  States  now 
take  initiative,  we  are  not  sketching  an  impossible  hope. 
Evidence  is  daily  accumulating  that  at  the  end  of  the 
war  the  opportunity  to  cooperate  with  the  nations  of 
Europe  in  forming  such  a  League  will  be  definitely 
ours. 

Let  me  state  why  we  may  expect  the  nations  of  Europe 
to  be  in  a  receptive  mood  toward  this  proposal: 

(i)  The  nations  will  know  that  they  dare  not  trust 
in  the  permanence  of  the  present  alliances  for  mutual 


48  ENFORCED  PEACE 

protection  in  the  future.  Practically  all  of  the  nations 
that  are  now  aUies  have  at  some  time  been  enemies; 
practically  all  that  are  now  enemies  have  at  some  time 
been  allies.  Wars  between  the  members  of  an  alhance 
over  opposing  national  interests  are  apparently  in- 
evitable, unless  there  is  provided  some  method  other 
than  war  to  deal  with  the  difiFerences  that  are  bound  to 
arise. 

(2)  The  nations  will  know  that  if  they  again  enter  a 
state  of  armed  peace  that  the  necessary  rivalry  in  arma- 
ments will  cause  such  crushing  burdens  of  taxation  that 
sooner  or  later  the  masses  will  rise  in  protest. 

(3)  The  nations  will  know  that,  unless  they  effect 
some  arrangement  that  will  give  greater  security  against 
war,  social  and  democratic  progress  will  be  a  virtual  im- 
possibility. As  a  war  machine,  an  autocratic  govern- 
ment is  more  efficient  than  a  democracy;  and  if  the 
nations  of  Europe  must  stand  on  the  eternal  defensive, 
the  masses  as  well  as  the  statesmen  will  be  sympathetic 
toward  the  type  of  government  that  affords  the  best 
protection  from  invasion. 

But  beyond  these  reasons  why  Europe  should  be 
favorable  toward  the  establishment  of  a  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  there  is  evidence  that  Europe  is  favorable. 
To  Theodore  Marburg,  as  an  envoy  of  the  American 
Branch  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  there  has  been 
given  by  letter  and  by  word  of  mouth,  assurance  of  the 
unqualified  support  of  the  proposal  by  such  statesmen 
as  Sir  Edward  Grey,  Lord  Bryce,  Premier  Asquith,  and 
others. 

Although  "  the  will  to  cooperate  "  be  strong  in  Europe 
the  success  of  the  proposal  will  depend  largely  upon  the 
initiative  of  the  United  States,  for  the  hatreds  en- 
gendered by  the  war  will  make  it  difficult  for  any  one 
nation  of  Europe  to  give  effective  leadership  to  such  a 
proposal.  Then,  too,  this  war  will  have  proved 
America  to  be  the  biggest  and  safest  source  of  those 


ENFORCED  PEACE  49 

supplies  upon  which  the  success  of  modern  warfare  de- 
pends— a  fact  that  will  lend  weight  to  any  international 
suggestion  we  may  make. 

Every  counsel  of  wisdom  urges  us  as  a  nation  to  stand 
upon  this  platform.  It  is  sound  business  pohcy.  A 
peaceful  world  makes  possible  a  permanently  prosperous 
America.  It  is  sound  pohtical  policy.  It  will  mean  for 
us  a  foreign  policy  under  which  we  shall  consciously 
assume  that  responsibihty  in  world  affairs  that  duty  de- 
mands. It  will  mean  for  us  a  domestic  poUcy  that 
will  clarify  many  of  our  vexed  questions.  If  we  unite 
upon  this  program,  all  differences  about  the  degree  of 
preparedness  necessary  will  be  easily  adjusted;  for  if  we 
should  adopt  as  our  slogan  "National  Preparedness  for 
International  Peace,"  every  man  and  woman  in  America 
would  feel  it  to  be  not  only  a  duty  but  a  privilege  to  pre- 
pare themselves  to  do  their  share  in  preserving  the  peace 
and  order  of  the  world.  The  fear  of  militarism  would  be 
removed,  for  if  we  pledge  our  arms  to  the  defense  of  the 
peace  of  the  world,  and  agree  to  submit  our  disputes  ta 
an  International  Court  before  declaring  war,  we  thereby 
protect  ourselves  against  the  possibility  of  our  ever  wag- 
ing a  war  of  conquest,  and  make  impossible  our  hasty 
entrance  into  any  war. 

And  if  there  ever  should  come  a  time,  which  is  doubt- 
ful, when  we  would  be  compelled  to  use  our  naval  and 
military  power  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  another  nation 
to  abide  by  its  agreement  to  submit  disputes  to  an  Inter- 
national Court,  we  would  not  be  "going  to  war"  in  the 
ordinary  sense.     It  has  been  well  said: 

"A  nation  removed  from  the  confhct  and  taking  part 
in  the  struggle  merely  out  of  a  sense  of  duty  to  humanity 
and  respect  for  its  pledged  word,  would  be  performing  an 
act  so  different  from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  going  to 
war  that  one  might  well  look  for  a  different  word  by 
which  to  characterize  it.  It  would,  in  effect,  be  posse 
comitatus  going  out  to  preserve  the  peace.     It  would  be 


so  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  difference  between  the  bloodthirsty  cut-throat  and 
the  consecrated  policeman,  who  batters  down  a  door  be- 
hind which  a  madman,  armed  to  the  teeth,  has  en- 
trenched himself." 

The  consecration  of  a  nation's  resources  and  arms  to 
such  an  endeavor  would  inevitably  produce  that 
spiritual  awakening  that  always  accompanies  sacrifice 
for  a  worthy  cause;  and  would  awaken  to  new  vigor 
those  qualities  of  devotion  to  duty  and  to  the  common 
good  that  will  go  far  in  helping  us  solve  our  problems  of 
labor,  of  business,  of  our  civic  and  political  life. 

Gentlemen,  the  opportunity  that  now  confronts  our 
nation  will  put  to  the  test  our  spiritual  capacity  as  a 
people.  I  cannot  beheve  that  we  will  merely  give  of  our 
wealth  to  relieve  the  suffering  of  war,  but  leave  the  high- 
way of  the  world  still  infested  with  outlaws.  I  know  the 
spirit  that  animates  the  men  and  women  of  our  nation, 
and  I  know  that  the  United  States  will  not  "pass  by  on 
the  other  side"  but  will  resolutely  do  its  share  toward 
helping  the  world  make  war  less  probable  and  peace 
more  lasting,  that  the  United  States  will  give  its 
allegiance  to  the  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace. 

The  closing  paper  on  the  general  subject  of  "The 
Platform"  was  by  Hamilton  Holt,  Litt.D.,  LL.D., 
Editor  of  the  Independent,  as  follows: 

THE  LEAGUE  PROGRAM,  PREPAREDNESS,  AND  ULTIMATE 
REDUCTION   OF   ARMAMENTS 

Except  for  the  extremists  in  both  camps — and  they 
are  after  all  very  few — the  pacifists  and  preparationists 
are  not  as  far  apart  as  they  think.  Both  want  peace, 
both  want  adequate  defense.  The  pacifists  dwell  per- 
haps most  on  the  end  to  be  achieved,  the  preparationists 
most  on  the  means  to  the  end. 


Photo  by  Aimi  Dupont,  New  York 

HAMILTON  HOLT,  Litt.D.,  LL.D. 
Vice  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee,  Le.ague  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  51 

The  pacifists,  however,  have  the  broader  vision. 
They  are  internationaUsts.  The  preparationists  are 
nationaUsts.  They  concern  themselves  mostly  with 
national  security.  The  only  difference  between  both 
groups  seems  to  be  this:  the  preparationists  say  that 
armaments  are  our  only  final  protection  against  an- 
nihilation; the  pacifists  say  that  armaments  lead  us 
directly  to  war;  that  if  you  prepare  for  a  thing  you  get 
what  you  prepare  for,  and  there  never  would  have  been 
this  war  if  some  nations  had  not  been  prepared.  Now 
if  we  are  candid  as  we  ought  to  be  in  approaching  a  sub- 
ject of  the  magnitude  of  this,  we  must  admit  that  arma- 
ments do  protect  us  when  we  are  in  trouble,  but  on  the 
other  hand  they  do  get  us  right  into  the  trouble.  The 
problem  before  us  is  how  to  solve  that  paradox:  how 
can  we  have  the  full  protection  that  armaments  afford 
and  at  the  same  time  disarm;  for  if  we  cannot  do  this  we 
must  admit  that  it  is  a  law  of  nature  that  war  is  to  con- 
sume all  the  fruits  of  progress — an  admission  that  hu- 
manity can  never  accept. 

I  believe  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  furnishes  the 
common  ground  on  which  the  pacifists  and  the  prepara- 
tionists can  unite,  because  the  League  provides  for  all 
sanctions,  moral,  economic,  and  physical,  to  maintain 
law  and  order,  and  furnishes  the  only  scientific  formula 
for  the  ultimate  reduction  of  armaments. 

The  great  German  philosopher,  Immanuel  Kant,  said 
over  one  hundred  years  ago  that  we  never  could  have 
universal  peace  until  the  world  was  politically  organized, 
and  it  never  would  be  possible  to  organize  the  world 
politically  until  the  peoples  and  not  the  kings  ruled. 
And,  he  added,  we  have  got  to  rid  our  hearts  of  that  feel- 
ing of  hatred  and  hostiUty  that  so  many  of  us  cherish 
against  other  races  and  creeds  and  peoples  and  na- 
tions. 

Now,  if  this  be  the  true  philosophy  of  peace,  and  it 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  most  fundamental  analysis  I  have 


52  ENFORCED  PEACE 

ever  read  on  the  peace  movement,  then,  when  this  great 
war  is  over  and  the  stricken,  sobered  people  attempt  to 
rear  a  new  civiUzation  on  the  ashes  of  the  old,  they  have 
got  to  do  three  things. 

They  have  got  to  extend  democracy  everywhere,  even 
here  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

They  have  got  to  instill  within  themselves  a  spirit  of 
hospitality  and  good  will  to  other  peoples. 

They  have  got  to  create  the  international  machinery 
for  doing  international  business; that  is,  they  have  got  to 
organize  the  world  pohtically. 

The  extension  of  democracy  will  be  brought  about,  if 
at  all,  by  forces  within  the  nations.  James  Bryce,  in  his 
^'American  Commonwealth,"  says  that  all  nations  in  the 
world  to-day,  some  slowly,  some  quickly,  but  all  with 
unresting  footsteps,  are  coming  to  adopt  the  American 
form  of  government.  At  the  present  moment  all  na- 
tions, with  the  insignificant  exception  of  Siam,  have 
some  form  of  representative  government.  Russia  has 
its  Duma,  Turkey  and  Persia  have  their  parliaments; 
and  perhaps  the  real  trouble  in  China  to-day  is  that 
they  have  not  got  popular  government  fast  enough. 
The  extension  of  democracy  will  be  brought  about  by 
forces  within  the  nations  going  on  irrespectively  of  peace 
or  international  movements. 

The  extension  of  the  spirit  of  good  will  and  hos- 
pitality will  likewise  be  brought  about  by  forces  within 
the  nations.  Largely,  I  suppose,  this  task  will  devolve 
upon  the  schools,  colleges,  and  churches. 

But  the  political  organization  of  the  world  will  not  be 
brought  about  by  forces  within  the  nations.  It  will 
rather  be  achieved  by  joint  action  of  the  governments 
of  the  nations,  and  there,  and  there  only,  is  the  phase  of 
the  peace  movement  where  the  United  States  can  exert 
influence  outside  of  its  own  boundaries. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  primarily  finds  its 
activity  in  this  third  aspect  of  the  peace  movement, 


ENFORCED  PEACE  53 

that  is,  it  is  the  machinery  by  which  reason  can  enthrone 
itself  in  the  world. 

There  are  four  stages  in  the  evolution  of  world  or- 
ganization. 

First,  the  creation  of  the  machinery:  courts,  parlia- 
ments, and  executives.  The  first  Hague  Parliament 
took  us  through  this  stage. 

Second,  the  agreement  to  use  the  courts  and  con- 
ferences.    There  is  no  such  agreement  on  earth  to-day. 

Third,  the  proposal  to  put  force  back  of  the  agreement. 

Fourth,  and  last,  the  proposal  to  put  force  back  of  the 
decrees  of  the  international  courts,  councils,  and  legis- 
latures. 

Our  League  to  Enforce  Peace  jumps  over  the  second 
stage  into  the  third.  We  do  not  think  it  possible,  or 
practicable,  to  suggest  that  the  nations  go  to  the  fourth 
stage  yet,  though  they  will  go  eventually. 

How  then  can  we  organize  the  world  for  peace,  and 
the  outcome  of  peace,  which  is  disarmament?  Before 
we  can  discuss  this  question  intelligently  we  must  ap- 
prehend the  three-fold  function  of  force  in  international 
relations,  and  this  not  one  in  a  hundred  persons  seems  to 
understand. 

Internationally  speaking,  force  can  be  divided  into 
three  kinds:  international  poUce,  aggression,  and  de- 
fense. Aggression  and  defense  sometimes  are  inter- 
changeable terms  and  cannot  be  considered  separately, 
but  in  the  main  they  represent  distinct  and  even  an- 
tagonistic ideas.  International  pohce  force  is  almost 
wholly  good.  It  means  the  enthronement  of  reason, 
if  necessary,  by  force.  Aggression  is  almost  wholly 
bad.  It  means  the  imposition  of  your  will  on  some 
one  else,  without  the  right  of  the  other  person  to  say 
whether  your  will  is  just  or  not.  Any  lawyer,  any 
jurist,  will  show  you  that  this  is  the  height  of  injustice 
in  personal  relations. 

Defense  may  be  a  glorious  duty  or  a  necessary  evil; 


54  ENFORCED  PEACE 

but  in  either  case  it  is  nothing  but  the  neutraUzation  of 
offense.  Therefore  the  problem  of  the  peace  movement 
is  to  reduce  the  force  of  offense  down  to  that  of  an  inter- 
national poUce,  because  defense  will  automatically  cease 
when  offense  ceases. 

How  can  that  take  place?  The  London  Spectator, 
hitherto  considered  an  intelligent  journal,  suggested 
recently  one  way.  It  said:  "Let  a  nation  disarm  all 
the  other  nations  by  force  and  then  disarm  itself." 
Such  an  idea  is  too  preposterous  to  discuss.  We  have  in 
our  own  constitution  a  clause  forbidding  the  govern- 
ment to  disarm  an  individual ;  otherwise  we  would  have 
no  ultimate  way  of  ridding  ourselves  of  tyrants. 

Another  way  would  be  to  call  a  conference  of  the 
nations  and  all  agree  to  disarm.  Such  a  course  is 
absolutely  impossible.  There  are  too  many  mediaeval- 
minded  nations  still  on  earth. 

But  is  there  no  other  way?  There  is.  It  may  be  here 
and  now  that  there  are  enough  nations — and  there  have 
got  to  be  enough  who  are  ready  to  disarm  in  advance  of 
the  others.  How  then  can  they  do  this  with  safety  to 
themselves?  Let  them  establish  a  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  based  on  the  principle  of  the  United  States  and  the 
principle  of  England.  Let  me  explain.  When  our 
forefathers  estabUshed  the  United  States,  the  State  of 
New  York  and  the  State  of  Virginia  each  had  a  separate 
navy.  But  by  the  adoption  of  our  constitution  they 
abohshed  their  separate  navies,  or  their  right  to  say 
whatever  they  wanted  to  say  by  force  in  interstate 
affairs,  and  in  return  they  were  guaranteed  home  rule 
and  local  autonomy  by  the  combined  power  of  all  the 
states.  But  more  than  that,  the  taxes  that  they  paid 
for  protection  were  less  than  they  had  previously  paid  to 
the  state  treasuries  for  state  protection.  In  other 
words,  by  pooling  forces,  their  taxes  were  less,  and  they 
consequently  disarmed. 

Let  the  nations  in  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  do 


ENFORCED  PEACE  55 

likewise.  Let  them  create  a  court  to  settle  justiciable 
questions,  a  legislature  to  make  rules,  and  let  them  dis- 
arm, as  our  forefathers  did,  i.e.,  down  to  the  point  where 
they  in  Congress  assembled  agreed  that  the  forces  of  the 
Union  were  strong  enough  to  preserve  it  from  enemies 
within  or  without.  Let  them  reduce  their  armaments 
to  the  point  where  the  combined  armaments  are  a  little 
larger  than  those  of  any  one.  Let  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  therefore  have  courts,  parliaments,  executives, 
and  disarmament  to  the  safety  point  on  the  American 
plan  and  be  prepared  to  use  force  against  nations  that 
will  not  forswear  force  on  the  English  plan. 

I  can  make  this  point  clearer  by  an  analogy.  Sup- 
pose instead  of  talking  about  forty-six  great  states  we 
speak  of  forty-six  farmers  on  the  western  frontier  all 
engaged  in  growing  grain,  and  all  armed  to  the  teeth. 
It  is  perfectly  evident  that  instead  of  raising  grain  they 
would  be  raising  Cain.  Suppose  there  were  fifteen  to 
twenty  of  them  who  had  more  sense  than  the  others. 
They  would  soon  get  together  to  devise  ways  and  means 
of  estabhshing  peace.  How  would  they  go  about  it? 
Not  by  making  arbitration  treaties  one  with  another  and 
leaving  their  dispute  to  a  third  man  to  decide.  They 
would  rather  get  together  and  form  a  posse  comilatus,  a 
vigilance  committee,  a  league  to  enforce  peace,  and  they 
would  say,  "Woe  betide  any  man  who  hereafter  breaks 
the  peace  of  this  community."  And  if  they  were  strong 
enough  they  would  maintain  it  but  if  not  they  would  in 
all  probabiUty  be  "shot  up"  themselves.  But  soon 
some  man  on  the  outside  of  the  group  would  say  to  him- 
self, "These  men  are  the  progressive  men  of  this  com- 
munity; I  had  better  cast  my  lot  with  them."  And  as 
this  man  joined  the  group  it  could  disarm  a  little  and  as 
other  men  joined  the  group  they  would  be  able  to  reduce 
their  force  a  Uttle  more  and  a  little  more,  until  finally  one 
or  two  armed  men,  policemen,  could  maintain  the  peace 
of  the  community  and  the  rest  would  go  about  unarmed. 


56  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Apply  this  analogy  to  the  nations.  Suppose  the 
majority  of  the  great  powers  joined  the  League.  Sup- 
pose the  League  had  a  total  army  of  two  miUion.  Sup- 
pose Russia  stays  out  and  has  an  army  of  one  million. 
It  would  be  no  use  for  the  League  to  keep  up  an  army  of 
two  million  for  Russia.  You  could  reduce  the  force  of 
the  League  to  one  and  a  half  million,  or  even  one  and  a 
quarter  million,  and  still  be  protected  and  safe  from 
Russia.  But  in  the  meantime,  the  hberal  men  in 
Russia  will  be  seeing  that  the  nations  in  the  League  are 
getting  greater  protection  for  themselves  for  less  taxa- 
tion and  finally  Russia  would  apply  to  join  the  League. 
And  when  Russia  came  in  there  would  be  a  pro  rata  re- 
duction of  the  armaments  of  the  League  down  to  the 
size  of  the  next  most  heavily  armed  nation  and  so  on 
down  until  nearly  all  the  nations  were  in  the  League  and 
the  armaments  were  reduced  to  an  international  police. 

Now  that  is  the  theory  of  a  League  of  nations.  It 
may  not  be  worked  out  just  in  that  way  when  this  war  is 
over  but  that  is  the  theory.  We  are  Uving  under  the 
competitive  theory  of  armaments  now,  and  under  that 
theory  armaments  must  continually  go  up. 

The  object  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  to  sub- 
stitute for  that  competitive  theory  the  collective  theory 
of  armaments.  It  seems  to  be  the  destiny  of  the  United 
States  to  lead  in  this  movement.  The  United  States  it- 
self is  the  greatest  League  of  Peace  knowTi  to  history. 
The  United  States  is  a  demonstration  that  all  peoples 
and  races  can  come  here  and  live  in  peace  together  imder 
one  form  of  government. 

Every  president  of  the  United  States  has  advocated 
peace  through  justice.  All,  from  the  first  great  Virgin- 
ian, George  Washington,  to  the  last  great  Virginian, 
Woodrow  Wilson,  has  abhorred  what  another  great 
Virginian,  Thomas  Jefferson,  called  "the  greatest 
scourge  of  mankind."'  Is  it  too  much  to  suppose  that 
the  man  who  happens  to  be  President  when  this  war  is 


ENFORCED  PEACE  57 

over  cannot  do  for  the  world  if  he  has  the  courage  and 
vision  something  similar  to  what  George  Washington 
did  for  our  States  after  the  Revolutionary  War  was  over? 
Stranger  things  than  that  have  happened  in  history. 
Let  us  add,  then,  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  a 
Declaration  of  Interdependence. 


CHAPTER  III 

PRACTICABILITY    OF    THE    LEAGUE 
PLATFORM 

Discussion  of  the  practicability  of  the  program 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  which  was  the 
general  topic  at  the  second  session  of  the  first 
annual  assemblage,  was  opened  by  William  Howard 
Taft,  B.A.,  LL.B.,  LL.D.,  formerly  President  of 
the  United  States,  president  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace.     Mr.  Taft's  paper  follows: 

CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF  THE  PROPOSALS 

To  me  has  been  assigned  the  discussion  of  the  con- 
stitutional objections  to  the  proposals  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace.  These  objections,  so  far  as  I  under- 
stand them,  are  directed  against  the  first  and  third 
planks  in  our  platform.     The  first  plank  reads  as  follows : 

"First:  AH  justiciable  questions  arising  between 
the  signatory  powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation, 
shall,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties,  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judg- 
ment, both  upon  the  merits  and  upon  any  issues 
as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question." 

This  looks  to  an  organization  of  a  permanent  court 
by  the  signatories  to  the  League.  It  contemplates  the 
opportunity  of  any  member  of  the  League,  having  a 

58 


Copyright,  191 2,  Moffttt  Studio 

WILLIAM  H.  TAFT 

Presitlent  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  59 

cause  of  complaint  against  any  other  member  of  the 
League,  to  sue  such  member  in  this  court  and  bring  it 
into  court  by  proper  process.  The  complainant's 
pleading  will,  of  course,  state  its  cause  of  action.  The 
defendant  may  wish  to  question  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  on  the  ground,  for  instance,  that  the  cause  of 
action  stated  by  the  complainant  does  not  involve  a 
justiciable  issue;  that  it  can  not  be  decided  on  prin- 
ciples of  law  or  equity. 

The  court,  upon  this  preHminary  question,  must 
decide  upon  its  jurisdiction.  If  it  finds  the  question 
not  to  be  justiciable,  it  must  dismiss  the  complaint, 
but  it  may  properly  refer  its  investigation  to  the 
Commission  of  Conciliation.  If  it  finds  that  it  is  jus- 
ticiable, it  must  require  the  defendant  nation  to  answer. 

What  I  have  to  discuss  is  whether  the  President 
and  the  Senate,  constituting  the  treaty-making  power 
for  this  Government,  may  consent,  for  and  on  behalf 
of  the  United  States,  to  the  settlement  of  any  justici- 
able issue  arising  between  the  United  States  and  any 
other  member  of  the  League  by  this  permanent  court; 
and  whether  it  may  leave  to  that  court  the  power  to 
decide  whether  the  issue  raised  is  a  justiciable  one.  It 
was  argued  against  a  similar  provision  in  the  general 
arbitration  treaties  with  England  and  France,  that 
such  a  stipulation  constituted  a  delegation  by  the 
President  and  Senate  of  the  authority  reposed  in  them 
over  the  foreign  relations  of  our  Government,  and 
therefore  that  it  was  ultra-vires.  Both  upon  reason 
and  authority  this  objection  is  untenable.  The  United 
States  is  a  nation,  and,  from  a  foreign  standpoint,  a 
sovereign  nation,  without  limitation  of  its  sovereignty. 
It  may,  therefore,  through  its  treaty-making  power, 
consent  to  any  agreement  with  other  powers  relating 
to  subject  matter  that  is  usually  considered  and  made 
the  subject  of  treaties.  The  well-known  language  of 
Mr.  Justice  Field,  in  the  case  of  Geofrey  v.  Riggs^ 


6o  ENFORCED  PEACE 

133  U.  S.  258,  leaves  no  doubt  upon  this  point.      It  is 
•as  follows: 


"That  the  treaty  power  of  the  United  States 
extends  to  all  proper  subjects  of  negotiations  be- 
tween our  Government  and  the  Governments 
of  other  nations,  is  clear.  .  .  .  The  treaty 
power,  as  expressed  in  the  Constitution,  is  in 
terms  unlimited,  except  by  those  restraints  which 
are  found  in  that  instrument  against  the  action 
of  the  Government,  or  of  its  Departments,  and 
those  arising  from  the  nature  of  the  Government 
itself,  and  of  that  of  the  States.  It  would  not 
be  contended  that  it  extends  so  far  as  to  authorize 
what  the  Constitution  forbids,  or  a  change  in  the 
character  of  the  Government,  or  in  that  of  one  of 
the  States,  or  a  cession  of  any  portion  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  latter  without  its  consent.  But  with 
these  exceptions,  it  is  not  perceived  that  there 
is  any  limit  to  the  questions  which  can  be  adjusted 
touching  any  matter  which  is  properly  the  subject 
of  negotiation  with  a  foreign  country." 

Issues  that  can  be  settled  on  principles  of  law  and 
V  equity  are  proper  subjects  for  decision  by  a  judicial 
tribunal.  Such  issues  have  been  settled  by  Boards  of 
Arbitration,  agreed  to  by  independent  sovereigns  since 
there  were  governments.  The  first  provision  agreed 
to  by  the  United  States  for  an  arbitration  of  this  kind 
was  in  the  Jay  Treaty  in  1794;  and  since  that  time 
there  have  been  eighty-four  international  arbitrations 
to  which  an  American  nation  was  a  party.  In  forty, 
or  nearly  one-half  of  these,  the  other  party  was  an 
European  Power,  while  the  arbitrations  between  Amer- 
ican nations  were  forty-four.  To  about  two-thirds 
of  aU  of  these  the  United  States  was  a  party,  the  num- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  6i 

ber  of  arbitrations  between  other  American  powers 
being  fourteen.  Of  this  number,  there  were  ten  that 
related  to  questions  of  boundary,  which  are,  of  course, 
questions  capable  of  solution  on  principles  of  law  and 
equity. 

In  such  cases,  it  was  never  suggested  that  the  Govern- 
ment was  delegating  any  power  at  all  to  the  tribunal. 
A  submission  to  a  judicial  decision  is  not  a  delegation 
of  power  as  to  an  agent.  It  is  a  submission  of  an  issue 
to  a  judge.  It  is  a  misnomer  to  call  such  a  sub- 
mission a  delegation,  or  to  determine  its  validity  on 
principles  of  delegation  of  power  as  that  is  limited  in 
constitutional  law.  In  the  discussion  of  the  general 
arbitration  treaties  in  the  Senate,  there  was  a  suggestion 
that  the  agreement  to  submit  to  a  court  questions 
which  had  not  yet  arisen  described  only  by  definition 
and  classification,  with  power  in  the  court  to  take 
jurisdiction,  was  more  of  a  delegation  of  power  than 
the  mere  submission  of  an  existing  question  to  arbi- 
trators. There  is,  however,  not  the  slightest  difference 
in  principle  between  the  two.  If  one  is  a  delegation,, 
the  other  is.  If  one  is  invaUd,  the  other  is;  and  if 
one  is  not  invalid,  the  other  is  not. 

Nor  does  the  right  to  determine  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  involve  in  principle  any  more  of  a  delegation  than 
the  mere  voluntary  submission  of  the  issue  to  the  court. 
It  only  somewhat  enlarges  the  issues  to  be  submitted. 
The  question  whether  the  court  has  jurisdiction  of  an 
issue  is  dependent  on  the  question  of  law,  involving 
the  construction  of  the  treaty,  and  such  a  subject 
matter  is  the  commonest  instance  of  the  class  of  ques- 
tions submitted  to  arbitration  or  a  court.  More  than 
this,  the  Senate  has  consented  from  time  to  time  to 
arbitrations  on  issues  which  may  arise  in  the  future 
and  defined  by  language  of  the  treaty  of  submission. 

The  last  notable  instance,  and  the  one  which  in- 
volved a  really  permanent  court  is  the  advice  and 


62  ENFORCED  PEACE 

consent  by  our  Senate  to  the  Hague  International 
Prize  Court  Convention  in  which  a  permanent  inter- 
national prize  court  was  established,  and  the  United 
States  bound  itself  to  submit  all  questions  arising  be- 
tween it  and  foreign  nations  in  respect  to  questions  of 
prize  in  naval  warfare,  to  this  international  prize  court, 
and  to  abide  the  decision,  even  though  that  decision 
might  involve,  as  it  generally  would,  the  reconsidera- 
tion of  an  issue  already  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  The  treaty  is  not  in  force  be- 
cause England  did  not  finally  approve,  but  our  Senate 
approved  it.  The  International  Prize  Court  must  of 
necessity  pass  upon  its  own  jurisdiction,  and  by  agree- 
ment between  the  parties,  its  decision  is  to  be  accepted 
and  to  be  carried  out  in  good  faith.  The  question  as 
to  whether  commissioners  of  arbitration,  under  the 
Jay  Treaty,  had  power  to  determine  their  own  juris- 
diction was  brought  by  Rufus  King,  American  Minister 
in  London,  to  the  attention  of  Lord  Grenville,  who 
submitted  the  question  to  Lord  Chancellor  Lough- 
borough. The  Lord  Chancellor  resolved  the  difficulty 
by  declaring: 

"That  the  doubt  respecting  the  authority  of  the 
Commissioners  to  settle  their  own  jurisdiction 
was  absurd;  and  that  they  must  necessarily  decide 
upon  cases  being  with,  or  without,  their  com- 
petency." 

A  similar  question  was  raised  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment in  regard  to  the  power  of  the  Geneva  Tribunal  to 
deal  with  what  were  known  as  the  "indirect  claims," 
and  her  arbitrators  decided  that  they  did  not  have 
jurisdiction  of  the  indirect  claims,  and  this  was  ac- 
quiesced in  by  both  Governments. 

In  correspondence  with  the  Chilean  Minister  over 


ENFORCED  PEACE  63 

an  arbitration  between  this  country  and  Chile,  Mr. 
Obiey,  then  Secretary  of  State,  used  this  language: 

"But  the  question  whether  any  particular  claim 
is  a  proper  one  for  the  consideration  and  decision 
of  an  international  commission  is  necessarily  one 
which  the  commission  itself  must  determine.  The 
conventions  under  which  such  commissions  are 
organized  usually  describe  in  general  terms  the 
class  of  cases  of  which  the  commission  is  to  take 
jurisdiction,  and  whether  any  particular  case  pre- 
sented to  it  comes  within  this  class  the  commission 
must,  of  course,  determine.  The  decisions  of  the 
late  commission,  both  interlocutory  and  final, 
are  binding  upon  both  Governments,  the  latter 
absolutely  so,  the  former  unless  reversed,  after 
proper  proceedings  for  a  rehearing." 

I  come  now  to  the  other  objection.  The  third  plank 
of  the  platform  is  as  follows: 

"Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly 
use  forthwith  both  their  economic  and  miUtary 
forces  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  goes 
to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  an- 
other of  the  signatories  before  any  question 
arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  fore- 
going." 

It  is  objected  to  this  clause  that  it  violates  the  Con- 
stitution in  that  the  effect  of  such  a  treaty  signed  by 
the  United  States  would  take  away  from  Congress  the 
power  conferred  upon  it  by  section  eight  of  article  one, 
to  declare  war. 

I  had  the  pleasure  and  privilege  of  hearing  Mr. 
Bryan  advance  this  argument  at  the  Lake  Mohonk 
Conference.    He  said  that  we  should  need  an  amend- 


64  ENFORCED  PEACE 

ment  to  the  Constitution  before  we  could  agree  to  any 
such  provision.  He  said  that  in  order  to  carry  out 
the  provision  we  must  have  a  joint  council  of  the 
powers  to  determine  when  the  time  had  arrived  for 
military  action  and  war,  and  that  this  would  sub- 
stitute the  action  of  the  council  for  the  constitutional 
discretion  of  Congress. 

I  venture  to  think  that  this  view  is  wholly  without 
foundation.  Although  it  is  not  necessary,  I  am  willing 
to  accept  the  assumption  that  some  kind  of  a  council 
would  be  appointed  by  the  powers  to  make  the  an- 
nouncements when  the  time  had  come  for  the  use  of 
economic  and  mihtary  forces  against  the  recalcitrant 
member.  Does  that  take  away  from  Congress  the 
power  to  declare  war?  It  does  not.  If  the  war  is  a 
foreign  war,  it  could  not  be  begun  under  the  Con- 
stitution until  Congress  had  declared  war.  The 
President  would  not  be  authorized  to  direct  the  Army 
and  the  Navy  to  begin  war  until  Congress  had  declared 
it. 

What,  then,  would  be  the  situation  if  the  fact  were 
announced  upon  which  the  obligation  of  the  United 
States  to  make  war  arose  under  this  treaty?  It  would 
be  to  make  war  by  Constitutional  means,  that  is,  by 
the  preliminary  declaration  of  Congress  that  war  ex- 
isted. Congress  might  decline  to  exercise  that  power 
and  refuse  to  declare  war.  What  would  be  the  effect 
of  that?  It  would  merely  be  a  breach  of  faith  on  the 
part  of  Congress,  and  so  a  breach  of  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  and  we  would  not  go  to  war.  The 
treaty  making  power  under  the  Constitution  creates 
the  obligation  to  declare  war  in  certain  contingencies. 
That  obligation  is  to  be  discharged  by  Congress  under 
its  Constitutional  power  to  declare  war.  If  it  fails  to 
do  so,  and  thus  comply  with  the  binding  obligation 
created  by  the  treaty  making  power,  then  it  merely 
breaks  the  contract  of  the  Government.    It  is  left  to 


ENFORCED  PEACE  65 

Congress  to  carry  out  that  which  we  in  a  Constitu- 
tional way  have  agreed  to  do.  Thus  to  impose  in  a 
Constitutional  way  by  treaty  an  obligation  on  Congress 
is  not  to  take  away  its  power  to  discharge  it  or  to  re- 
fuse to  discharge  it. 

In  1904  we  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  Republic 
of  Panama,  the  first  article  of  which  is: 

"The  United  States  guarantees  and  will  main- 
tain the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama." 

/  What  is  the  necessary  effect  of  this  guaranty?  It 
necessarily  means  that  if  any  nation  attacks  Panama 
and  attempts  to  take  territory  from  her  or  to  subvert 
her  Government,  the  United  States  is  under  treaty 
obhgation  to  make  war  to  defend  Panama.  Was  it 
ever  supposed  that  such  an  obligation  took  away  from 
Congress  the  power  to  declare  war?  This  treaty  obli- 
gation makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  declare 
war  under  certain  conditions  that  may  arise,  creates  a 
contract  obligation  to  the  Republic  of  Panama  that 
it  shall  do  so,  and  this  duty  can  only  be  discharged 
through  the  action  of  Congress  in  declaring  war.  Does 
that  deprive  Congress  of  its  Constitutional  power  to 
declare  war?  It  seems  to  me  the  question  answers 
itself. 

In  our  relations  with  Cuba  we  find  in  the  present 
treaty: 

ARTICLE  I 

"The  Government  of  Cuba  shall  never  enter  into 
any  treaty  or  other  compact  with  any  foreign 
power  or  powers  which  will  impair  or  tend  to  im- 
pair the  independence  of  Cuba,  nor  in  any  manner 
authorize  or  permit  any  foreign  power  or  powers  to 
obtain  by  colonization  or  for  military  or  naval  pur- 


66  ENFORCED  PEACE 

poses  or  otherwise,  lodgment  in  or  control  over  any 
portion  of  said  Island." 

ARTICLE  n 

"The  Government  of  Cuba  consents  that  the 
United  States  may  exercise  the  right  to  intervene 
for  the  preservation  of  Cuban  independence,  the 
maintenance  of  a  government  adequate  for  the  pro- 
tection of  life,  property  and  individual  liberty,  and 
for  discharging  the  obligation  with  respect  to  Cuba 
imposed  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  on  the  United  States 
now  to  be  assumed  and  undertaken  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Cuba." 

ARTICLE  m 

"To  enable  the  United  States  to  maintain  the  in- 
dependence of  Cuba,  and  to  protect  the  people 
thereof,  as  well  as  for  its  own  defense,  the  Govern- 
ment of  Cuba  will  sell  or  lease  to  the  United  States, 
lands  necessary  for  coaling  or  naval  stations  at 
certain  specific  points  to  be  agreed  upon  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States." 


It  is  quite  clear  from  these  three  articles  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  binds  itself  to  main- 
tain the  independence  of  Cuba  and  to  exclude  other 
governments  from  lodgment  in  the  Island.  Now,  if  any 
Government  attempts  to  filch  territory  from  Cuba  or  to 
subvert  the  government,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  make  war  and  defend  against  such  in- 
vasion. Does  this  treaty  obligation  thus  created  take 
away  from  Congress  the  power  to  declare  war?  It  only 
creates  the  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to 
wage  war,  and  in  discharging  this  obligation  Congress 
must  act,  or  the  Government  must  be  recreant  to  its 
agreement. 


GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON,  A.B.,  A.M..  Ph.D.,  L.L.D. 

Professor  of  International  Law  at  Harvard  L'niversity;  Honorary  Vice 

President,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  67 

Thus,  by  reason  and  precedent,  it  would  appear  clear 
that  this  third  plank  of  the  platform  of  the  League  is  not 
in  any  way  an  attempt  to  take  from  Congress  the 
power  which  it  has  to  declare  war  under  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  suggestion  that  in  order  to  carry  out  such 
an  obhgation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  amend  the  Constitution,  grows  out  of  a 
confusion  of  ideas  and  a  failure  to  analyze  the  differences 
between  the  creation  of  an  obhgation  of  the  United 
States  to  do  a  thing  and  the  due,  orderly  and  Constitu- 
tional course  to  be  taken  by  it  in  doing  that  which  it  has 
agreed  to  do. 

Taking  up  another  phase  of  American  National 
policies  George  Grafton  Wilson,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D., 
LL.D.,  professor  of  international  law  at  Harvard 
University  and  lecturer  on  international  law  at 
the  United  States  Naval  War  College  and  author 
of  various  works  on  the  subject  of  international  law, 
presented  the  following: 

THE   MONROE   DOCTRINE 

There  have  been  some  arguments  against  the  plat- 
form of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  One  of  these 
arguments  most  frequently  advanced  is  that  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  platform  of  the  League  would  violate  the 
so-called  Monroe  Doctrine.  These  words,  "  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,"  have  been  used  to  designate  or  to  conceal 
such  a  variety  of  ideas  and  practices  that  it  is  necessary 
to  start  with  some  premise  as  to  what  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  may  be. 

If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  as  Professor  Bingham 
says,  an  "obsolete  shibboleth,"  it  is  clear  that  the  re- 
lation of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  the  content  of  the 
Doctrine  would  be  one  of  historical  and  speculative  in- 


68  ENFORCED  PEACE 

terest  only.  If  on  the  other  hand  it  is,  as  Mr.  Petin 
says,  the  substitution  by  the  United  States  of  an 
''American  law  for  the  general  law  of  nations,"  the  re- 
lations of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  platform  of  the 
League  would  be  a  fundamental  question.  If  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  is  an  assertion  of  the  "supremacy  of  the 
United  States  in  the  Western  Hemisphere"  or  "supre- 
macy in  political  leadership,"  there  would  also  be  reason 
for  careful  deUberation.  A  cursory  investigation  would, 
however,  show  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  part 
of  international  law. 

The  statement  of  the  Doctrine  has  varied.  Early 
discussions  in  the  cabinet  before  the  Doctrine  was  set 
forth  in  Monroe's  message  seem  to  have  been  as  lively  as 
some  later  ones  upon  the  same  subject.  Jefferson,  when 
consulted  upon  the  advisability  of  a  pohcy  which  would 
not  "suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-Atlantic 
affairs,"  comparing  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
with  this  Doctrine,  said:  "That  (the  Declaration)  made 
us  a  nation;  this  sets  our  compass  and  points  the  course 
which  we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time  opening 
before  us."  In  the  early  days  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  the 
aim  was  to  avoid  further  European  interference  in 
American  affairs.  Later,  particularly  from  the  days  of 
President  Polk,  the  Doctrine  assumed  a  more  positive 
form.  Bismarck  is  reported  to  have  called  the  Doctrine 
a  piece  of  "  international  impertinence."  In  1901  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt  in  his  annual  message  declared:  "The 
Monroe  Doctrine  should  be  the  cardinal  feature  of  the 
foreign  policy  of  all  the  nations  of  the  two  Americas,  as 
it  is  of  the  United  States,"  and  in  1904  that  "the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  may  force  the  United  States,  however  re- 
luctantly, in  flagrant  cases  of  such  wrong  doing  or  im- 
potence to  the  exercise  of  an  international  pohce  power." 

President  Taft  intimated  in  his  message  in  1909  that 
"the  apprehension  which  gave  rise  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  may  be  said  to  have  disappeared  already  and 


ENFORCED  PEACE  69 

neither  the  Doctrine  as  it  exists  nor  any  other  doctrine 
of  American  poHcy  should  be  permitted  to  operate 
for  the  prepetuation  of  irresponsible  government,  the 
escape  of  just  obUgations  or  the  insidious  allegation  of 
dominating  ambitions  on  the  part  of  the  United  States." 

The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  gave  rise  to 
new  problems.  The  rumor  that  foreigners  were  making 
purchases  of  land  about  Magdalena  Bay  in  Mexico  led 
to  pronovmcements  in  the  United  States  Senate,  in  1912, 
that  the  United  States  could  not  view  foreign  possession 
of  this  or  any  such  harbor  "  without  grave  concern  "  and 
it  was  admitted  that  this  was  a  "statement  of  poUcy," 
allied  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  of  course,  but  not  neces- 
sarily dependent  upon  it  or  growing  out  of  it. 

As  in  the  early  days  the  United  States  considered  it 
within  its  rights  to  assert  a  policy  defensive  in  its  nature 
but  for  the  preservation  of  its  well  being,  so  in  later  days 
the  same  general  policy  has  taken  differing  forms. 
President  Wilson  early  in  his  administration  endeavored 
to  assure  the  Americas  of  his  desire  for  the  cordial  co- 
operation of  the  people  of  the  different  nations,  and  a 
little  later  he  asserted  "We  are  friends  of  constitu- 
tional government  in  America;  we  are  more  than  its 
friends,  we  are  its  champions,"  and  in  the  same  message 
he  declared  that  the  United  States  "must  regard  it  as 
one  of  the  duties  of  friendship  to  see  that  from  no  quarter 
are  material  interests  made  superior  to  human  liberty 
and  national  opportunity."  President  Roosevelt  had 
in  1 901  asserted  that  the  Doctrine  referred  not  merely  to 
European  but  to  "any  non-American  power."  This 
was  recognized  abroad,  as  Sir  Edward  Grey  said  in  191 1 
of  the  United  States:  "They  had  a  poUcy  associated 
with  the  name  of  Monroe,  the  cardinal  point  of  which 
was  that  no  European  or  non-American  nation  should 
acquire  fresh  territory  on  the  continent  of  America." 

In  December,  1913,  Mr.  Page,  the  American  Ambas- 
sador to  Great  Britain,  announced  a  late  form  of  policy, 


70  ENFORCED  PEACE 

saying:  "We  have  now  developed  subtler  ways  than 
taking  their  lands.  There  is  the  taking  of  their  bonds, 
for  instance.  Therefore,  the  important  proposition  is 
that  no  sort  of  financial  control  can  without  the  consent 
of  the  United  States  be  obtained  over  these  weaker 
nations  which  would  in  effect  control  their  govern- 
ment." 

These  and  many  other  views  regarding  the  significance 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  show  the  varying  forms  in 
which  the  United  States  has  stated  its  opposition  to  the 
permanent  occupation  of  territory  or  acquisition  of 
pohtical  control  in  the  American  hemisphere  by  non- 
American  powers.  It  has  seemed  necessary  to  present 
these  differing  ideas  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  show 
that  it  is  not  law  and  to  show  that  as  a  manifestation  of 
policy  it  is  not  set  forth  in  any  single  formula. 

As  single  nations  and  as  groups  of  nations  have 
policies  which  vary  in  different  parts  of  the  world  and  as 
the  conflict  of  policies  rather  than  the  violation  of 
established  law  is  the  frequent  cause  of  international 
difference  it  is  evident  that  if  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  cannot  provide  any  aid  in  case  of  conflict  of 
policies  its  function  will  be  comparatively  restricted. 
The  conflict  of  policy  would  rarely  take  form  which 
would  make  justiciable  methods  practicable  as  a  means 
of  settlement. 

This  being  the  case  reference  of  such  matters  would  be 
to  the  Council  of  Conciliation  provided  for  in  the  second 
article  of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 
The  first  article  provides  for  justiciable  questions  and 
the  second  states:  "All  other  questions  arising  between 
the  signatories  and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  Coimcil  of  Conciliation  for  hearing,  con- 
sideration and  recommendation."  Here  it  should  be 
repeated  that  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  does  not  bind 
itself  to  carry  out  the  recommendation  which  the  Coun- 
cil of  Conciliation  may  make  but  merely  binds  itself  to 


ENFORCED  PEACE  71 

see  that  no  power  goes  to  war  over  such  a  matter  until 
the  question  has  been  submitted. 

The  conflicts  of  poUcy  would  in  most  cases  be  settled 
by  ordinary  diplomatic  negotiations  between  the  parties 
concerned.  Even  the  Hague  Convention  of  1899  and 
1907  for  the  Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Dis- 
putes ratified  by  twenty-eight  or  more  of  the  leading 
states  of  the  world  states  that:  "In  case  of  serious 
disagreement  or  dispute,  before  an  appeal  to  arms,  the 
signatory  powers  agree  to  have  recourse,  as  far  as  cir- 
cumstances allow,  to  the  good  offices  or  mediation  of  one 
or  more  friendly  powers."  (Art.  2.)  The  Convention 
of  1907  deems  it  "expedient  and  desirable  that  one  or 
more  powers,  strangers  to  the  dispute,  should  on  their 
own  initiative"  tender  such  offices.  The  United 
States,  however,  in  signing  this  Convention  made  reser- 
vation that,  "Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention 
shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require  the  United  States  of 
America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  pohcy  of  not  in- 
truding upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangUng  itself  in 
poUtical  questions  or  policy  or  internal  administration 
of  any  foreign  State;  nor  shall  anything  contained  in  the 
said  convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  reUnquishment 
by  the  United  States  of  America  of  its  traditional  at- 
titude toward  purely  American  questions. " 

The  United  States  has,  however,  also  within  recent 
years,  particularly  since  1913,  become  a  party  to  a  large 
number  of  treaties  in  which  "The  High  Contracting 
Parties  agree  that  all  disputes  between  them,  of  every 
nature  whatsoever,  to  the  settlement  of  which  previous 
arbitration  treaties  or  agreements  do  not  apply  in  their 
terms  or  are  not  applied  in  fact,  shall,  when  diplomatic 
methods  of  adjustment  have  failed,  be  referred  for  in- 
vestigation and  report  to  an  international  commission," 
and  "they  agree  not  to  declare  war  or  begin  hostiUties 
during  such  investigation  and  before  the  report  is  sub- 
mitted."    "The  report  shall  be  presented  in  the  maxi- 


72  ENFORCED  PEACE 

mum  period  of  one  year,  but  the  High  Contracting 
Parties,  by  mutual  accord  may  shorten  or  extend  this 
period."  Some  of  these  treaties  are  to  remain  effective 
for  five  years  from  the  date  of  ratification  and  then  till 
twelve  months  from  notice  of  intention  to  terminate  the 
treaty.    These  treaties  have  still  some  time  to  run. 

Plainly,  therefore,  the  United  States  is  already  bound, 
possibly  in  some  cases  under  the  Hague  Convention, 
and  certainly  under  these  other  treaties,  of  which  there 
are  a  large  number,  to  submit  disputes  even  involving 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  a  body  which  would  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.  These  treaties  are  with  France,  Great  Britain, 
and  Russia  as  well  as  with  other  European  states  and 
with  South  and  Central  American  states.  The  Presi- 
dent in  proclaiming  these  treaties  declares  that  he  has 
"caused  the  said  treaty  to  be  made  pubhc,  to  the  end 
that  the  same  and  every  article  and  clause  thereof 
may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by  the 
United  States  and  by  the  citizens  thereof." 

A  dispute  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  in- 
volving its  principles  whatever  they  may  be  would 
surely  be  included  in  the  agreement  made  by  the  United 
States  to  refer  disputes  "of  every  nature  whatsoever" 
to  an  international  commission  for  investigation  and 
report.  This  principle  has  had  endorsement  by  leaders 
in  preceding  administrations  as  well  as  in  the  action 
upon  these  treaties  by  the  present  administration  and 
is  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  embodying  partisan 
policies.  The  United  States  is  already  bound  to  act 
as  regards  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  disputes  which  may 
arise  with  most  states  in  a  fashion  in  exact  accord 
with  the  second  article  of  the  platform  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace.  The  aim  of  the  League  is  secured 
when  the  question  which  negotiation  has  been  unable 
to  settle  is  submitted  "for  hearing,  consideration  and 
recommendation"  and  it  makes  little  difference  whether 


ENFORCED  PEACE  73 

the  body  to  which  it  is  submitted  is  called  an  "inter- 
national commission"  or  a  "council  of  conciliation." 

If  then  the  United  States  and  thirty  or  more  nations 
are  already  bound  to  the  principle  of  the  second  article 
of  the  League's  platform  so  far  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
and  other  matters  are  subjects  of  dispute,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  reason  for  raising  the  question  of  prac- 
ticabiUty  of  that  part  of  the  program  at  the  present 
time.  Its  practicability  has  already  been  formally 
declared,  and  as  embodied  in  treaty  provisions  is  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 

Any  further  discussion  as  to  the  practicability  of 
the  appUcation  of  the  League's  program  to  differences 
arising  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  in- 
volve the  question  whether  treaties  already  made  will 
be  observed  when  put  to  the  test.  Put  concretely 
the  question  may  be,  will  the  United  States  which  has 
made  treaties  with  certain  states  agreeing  to  submit 
to  an  international  commission  disputes  "of  every 
nature  whatsoever"  find  it  practicable  to  submit  a 
dispute  arising  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to 
such  a  commission  or  will  the  United  States  disregard 
the  treaty,  and  did  the  United  States  so  intend  in 
making  the  treaty?  It  is  to  be  hoped  and  it  must  be 
believed  that  these  treaties  were  made  in  good  faith 
and  that  the  parties  to  the  treaties  intend  to  observe 
their  provisions.  It  has  even  been  announced  that 
the  United  States  proposes  to  observe  in  principle 
toward  other  nations  not  parties  to  such  treaties  the  line 
of  conduct  prescribed  in  these  treaties.  These  treaties 
are  called  treaties  for  the  "Advancement  of  Peace"  and 
declare  as  their  object  "to  contribute  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  spirit  of  universal  peace"  or  "to  serve 
the  cause  of  general  peace."  Accordingly  the  enforce- 
ment of  these  treaties  is  regarded  by  these  states  as 
at  least  desirable  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

Under  the  general  practice  and  law  of  nations  the 


74  ENFORCED  PEACE 

violation  of  a  treaty  may  be  a  just  cause  of  war.  If 
this  be  so  then  it  is  particularly  essential  that  treaties 
for  "the  development  of  the  spirit  of  universal  peace" 
be  kept.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  simple  proposition 
that  the  greater  the  risk  of  violation  of  a  treaty  the 
less  ready  a  state  will  be  to  violate  the  treaty.  This 
principle  generally  prevails  though  at  times  states  dis- 
regard all  risks.  If  there  is  behind  a  treaty  the  com- 
pelling force  of  the  fact  of  a  signed  agreement  and  the 
physical  resources  of  the  other  signatory  only,  the 
fact  of  the  agreement  seems  often,  even  in  modern 
times,  to  have  had  little  weight,  and  the  sole  deterrent 
seems  to  have  been  the  physical  power  which  might 
be  felt  if  the  agreement  was  not  observed.  This  has 
given  rise  to  the  maxim  often  quoted  that  "a  treaty 
is  as  strong  as  the  force  behind  it."  There  is  un- 
doubtedly some  truth  in  the  maxim. 

The  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  pro- 
poses to  adopt  what  is  beneficial  in  the  maxim  and  to 
put  behind  treaties  a  degree  of  force  which  weak  states 
might  by  themselves  be  unable  to  command.  If  imder 
the  provision  by  which  the  United  States  and  other 
states  have  agreed  to  refer  to  an  international  com- 
mission all  differences  there  is  a  reservation  as  regards 
matters  affecting  the  Monroe  Doctrine  this  reservation 
is  not  expressed  or  implied. 

There  has  been  for  many  years  evidence  that  treaties 
needed  behind  them  some  sanction.  The  one  sanction 
which  all  nations  recognize  is  that  of  force,  whether 
it  be  economic,  physical  or  other  force.  By  the  state 
which  scrupulously  observes  its  treaty  engagements 
this  force  is  never  felt  or  feared.  By  the  state  that  is 
not  considerate  of  its  treaty  obligations  this  force  is 
feared  and  may  be  felt.  The  state  that  proposed  to 
observe  its  international  obligations  would  seem  to 
have  almost  a  right  to  demand  that  it  be  secured  against 
violation  of  its  rights  by  a  party  which  has  agreed  by 


ENFORCED  PEACE  75 

treaty  to  observe  them,  particularly  when  the  party 
which  observes  its  international  obligations  has  in 
rehance  upon  the  promise  of  the  other  party  refrained 
from  building  up  a  force  to  inspire  fear  in  that  party. 
All  that  a  State  can  reasonably  demand  is  that  its  side 
of  a  controversy  be  heard  and  considered  impartially. 
The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  proposes  to  secure  such 
hearing  and  consideration  for  both  parties  but  beyond 
that  does  not  propose  to  go  even  if  the  subject  of  the 
controversy  be  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

The  question  has  been  repeatedly  asked,  what  would 
be  the  position  of  the  United  States  as  a  member  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  if  a  non-American  Power 
should  through  purchase  acquire  St.  Thomas  from 
Denmark  or  a  coaling  station  in  Central  America  from 
some  American  State?  Suppose  the  question  is  in 
regard  to  the  purchase  of  St.  Thomas  by  a  non- American 
State?  Denmark  maintains  that  as  sovereign  she  has 
the  right  to  sell.  The  non-American  State  buys.  The 
purchaser  attempts  to  enter  into  possession.  The 
United  States  cites  President  Grant  in  1869  to  the 
effect  that  "These  dependencies  are  no  longer  regarded 
as  subject  to  transfer  from  one  European  Power  to 
another."  The  United  States  could  not  without  violat- 
ing an  existing  treaty  with  Denmark  go  to  war  with 
that  State  without  first  submitting  the  matter  to  an 
international  commission.  If  the  purchaser  were 
France  or  any  of  several  other  European  states  similar 
treaties  would  bind  the  United  States  to  await  the  re- 
port of  the  international  commission  before  taking 
hostile  action.  In  other  words  the  United  States  is 
already  bound  by  treaties  with  Denmark,  Italy,  Nor- 
way, Sweden,  France,  Great  Britain,  Spain,  Russia, 
etc.,  to  submit  just  these  questions  to  the  procedure 
recommended  in  the  League  platform. 

The  answer  to  those  who  ask  the  question  as  to 
what  the  United  States  would  do  as  a  member  of 


76  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  League  in  the  supposed  case  of  a  dispute  over 
the  transfer  of  St.  Thomas  would  be  that  the  United 
States  would  keep  its  treaty  agreement  and  submit 
the  question  to  the  international  commission  if  the 
purchasing  State  was  among  those  with  which  there 
is  a  treaty  and  this  would  entirely  meet  the  obligations 
as  a  member  of  the  League.  Consequently  in  this 
case  there  would  be  no  new  obhgations.  If  the  pur- 
chasing State  should  be  one  with  which  the  United 
States  has  not  one  of  these  recent  treaties  but  if  the 
purchasing  State  be  a  member  of  the  League,  the  United 
States  would  be  under  obUgation  to  submit  the  con- 
troversy not  to  a  court  of  justice  or  of  arbitration,  but 
to  a  council  of  conciliation  or  international  commis- 
sion for  hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation 
for  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  matter  of  law,  but  a 
matter  of  policy.  The  same  is  to  be  said  in  regard  to 
the  question  in  regard  to  the  acquisition  of  a  coahng 
station.  In  brief  the  United  States  would  be  obhged 
so  far  as  members  of  the  League  were  concerned  to  do 
exactly  what  it  is  now  obhged  by  treaty  agreement  to 
do  with  most  of  the  states  of  the  world,  and  as  those 
treaty  states  would  probably  be  the  members  of  the 
League  the  conditions  would  be  changed  m  no  respect 
except  that  behind  the  treaty  obhgation  would  be  the 
sanction  of  the  justified  use  of  economic  and  military 
force  in  addition  to  other  sanctions. 

Further  it  may  be  said  if,  when  in  dispute,  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  as  applied  by  the  United  States  is  not  a 
poUcy  upon  which  the  United  States  is  willing  to  await 
hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation,  then  the 
United  States  has  not  acted  in  good  faith  in  signing 
these  recent  treaties,  and  it  may  also  be  said  if  the 
American  poUcy  as  embodied  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
will  not  stand  the  test  of  investigation  and  consider- 
ation it  is  time  for  the  United  States  to  be  determining 
why  it  should  longer  give  to  the  Doctrine  its  support. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  77 

As  the  plan  of  the  League  for  submission  of  con- 
troversies such  as  might  arise  over  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
has,  on  the  initiative  of  the  United  States,  already 
been  embodied  in  treaties  with  a  greater  part  of  the 
states  of  the  world,  such  a  plan  cannot  be  regarded  as 
impracticable  without  condemnation  of  the  judgment 
of  those  who  are  in  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  world, 
and  this  judgment  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  having 
the  well  being  of  the  world  in  view,  does  not  criticize 
and  condemn  but  supports  and  commends. 

Talcott  Williams,  A.B.,  A.M.,  L.H.D., 
LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  Director  of  the  School  of  Journal- 
ism, of  Columbia  University,  dehvered  an  address 
on  "Entangling  Alliances,"  as  follows: 

ENTANGLING    ALLIANCES,    NOW,   AND   IN    WASHINGTON'S. 
DAY 

The  United  States  won  independence  in  large  measure 
through  its  alliance  with  France.  Since,  it  has  been  a 
country  without  alliances.  Alone  of  earth's  greater 
powers  in  the  past  century  and  a  quarter  it  has  made  no 
alUance  in  peace  or  in  war.  It  has  shared,  now  and 
then,  in  some  "concert  of  action,"  as  in  restoring  order 
in  Peking  in  1900.  More  than  once,  it  has  joined  in  a 
common  policy,  as  in  suppressing  the  slave  trade,  when 
its  men-of-war  acted  with  those  of  other  countries,  in 
removing  crime  against  humanity.  When  the  in- 
dependence and  integrity  of  China  were  threatened  in 
1902,  it  timed  its  protest  with  that  of  England  so  as  to 
have  on  Russia  all  the  effect  of  united  action.  A  direct 
alliance  it  has  avoided  and  still  avoids;  but  in  the 
absence  of  any  alliance  ratified  by  treaty,  it  has  not 
hesitated  in  the  past  60  years,  in  suppressing  the  slave 
trade,  in  protesting  against  Armenian  massacres  in 


78  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Turkey,  in  organizing  the  Congo  Free  State,  in  deciding 
the  future  of  Morocco  in  the  Algeciras  Conference — in 
all  using  its  moral  weight  and  its  national  forces  for  a 
common  end  so  that  its  action  worked  the  same  fruitful 
result  as  an  alliance.  Where  other  nations  in  1907, 
Russia,  France  and  England,  negotiated  identical 
treaties  with  Japan  mutually  guaranteeing  existing 
territorial  possessions  in  the  Far  East,  the  United  States 
made  its  pledge  of  policy  to  the  same  end  through  a  note 
drawn  by  John  Hay.  Those  who  confuse  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  with  "entanghng  alliances"  forget  both 
that  the  United  States  has  used  its  military  forces  on 
land  and  at  sea  to  enforce  a  common  policy  mutually 
pledged  with  other  lands  and  that  conditions  have  radi- 
cally changed  since  Washington  accepted  the  French 
AUiance  to  secure  independence  and  later  pointed  out 
the  peril  of  international  entanglement. 

Washington's  warning,  in  his  Farewell  Address, 
against  ''Entangling  AlHances,"  has  influenced  the 
American  people  as  has  no  other  phrase  in  its  annals. 
It  killed  the  public  movement  to  act  on  the  alliance 
with  France  impUed  in  our  treaty  though  through  that 
treaty  and  its  mutual  pledges  of  joint  and  mutual 
action  our  independence  was  secured.  It  strengthened 
the  hands  of  President  Adams  in  breaking  with  France, 
and  bringing  the  war  at  sea,  whose  trophies  are  still 
at  AnnapoUs,  and  the  Water vliet  arsenal,  forgotten  of 
all  Americans. 

The  phrase  "entangling  alliances,"  and  the  spirit,  so 
terse,  so  direct,  so  exact  a  definition  of  the  diplomacy 
of  the  day,  stayed  Jefferson  from  aligning  us  with 
France.  It  brought  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  out- 
right, as  Bonaparte  saw  was  necessary,  instead  of  the 
temporizing  of  our  envoys  at  Paris.  This  precept 
kept  clear  our  diplomatic  policy  when  a  century  ago, 
Latin  America  rose  in  revolt.  It  preserved  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  though  suggested  by  England,  as  a  promise 


ENFORCED  PEACE  79 

made  to  ourselves  and  not  as  a  compact  expressed 
or  implied  with  any  other  nation  whatsoever.  It 
warned  us  against  the  many  proposals  from  the  Pan- 
American  Congress  of  John  Quincy  Adams  to  the  close 
of  the  Spanish-American  war,  thick  sown,  in  its  un- 
pubhshed  diplomacy,  with  intimations  of  possible  com- 
mon action  or  understandings  among  envious  friends. 

What  "entangling  alliances"  meant,  our  own  day 
has  seen  when  the  one  only  such  alliance  in  force  when 
Washington  spoke,  led  Portugal  to  ofiFer  to  send  its  quota 
to  the  trenches  in  France  under  a  treaty  a  century  and  a 
half  old,  though  within  a  few  years,  England's  warships 
in  the  Tagus  forced  from  Portugal  on  twenty-four  hours' 
notice,  submission  of  an  ancient  colonial  right  which 
demanded  and  deserved  arbitration.  In  the  vast 
European  quarrel,  Portugal  had  no  interest,  past,  pres- 
ent or  prospective,  but  an  "entanghng  alliance"  left 
no  option. 

Of  such  alliances,  the  world  Washington  knew  was 
full.  The  world  we  know  has  eight  great  powers,  whose 
united  action  for  peace  could  pacify  the  world.  Six  are 
in  Europe,  one,  Japan,  in  East  Asia,  and,  one,  the 
United  States,  looks  out,  the  umpire  of  a  world  at  war. 
Washington,  when  he  warned  the  country  his  sober  and 
loyal  service  had  created,  against  "entangling alliances," 
looked  out  on  an  earth  divided  into  many  lands,  dissi- 
dent, dissonant,  none  dominant,  none  acting  alone.  All 
Europe,  strong  or  weak,  had  to  accept  alliances  which 
entangled  national  pohcy  and  strangled  national  free- 
dom because  only  by  this  path^  could  safety  be  secured 
by  the  weak  and  power  by  the  strong.  European  diplo- 
matic relations  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
were  a  confusing  reticulation  of  nearly  sixty  states. 

These  are  no  more  to-day  in  all  the  world.  Europe 
has  only  a  third  of  this  number,  and  six  are  dominant. 
No  great  power  existed  a  century  ago  in  the  sense  we 
understand   it.     Russia   in   the   decades   Washington 


8o  ENFORCED  PEACE 

knew  twice  sought  a  league  of  neutrals  to  preserve  the 
safety  of  her  merchant  trafl5c.  So  perilous  a  danger  to 
the  fleet  of  England  was  held  the  fleet  of  Denmark  that 
midway  between  the  Battle  of  the  Nile  and  Trafalgar,  it 
was  destroyed  by  Nelson  in  a  day  of  unbroken  peace  be- 
tween the  two  flags,  without  warning,  and  without  any 
declaration  of  war,  whatsoever.  The  open  and  avowed 
justification  was  that  relations  between  France  and 
Russia  might  place  the  Danish  fleet  at  the  disposition 
of  Napoleon. 

This  result  was  liable  for  any  State  caught  in  the  mesh 
of  alliances  all  Europe  shared.  Nor  was  Europe  alone 
thus  divided  and  subdivided.  Asia  has  to-day  only 
nine  independent  states,  of  which  three  enjoy  but  the 
shadow  of  sovereignty.  In  British  India  alone  there  are 
1 06  native  rulers,  whose  government  salute  attests  the 
fact  that  in  Washington's  day,  and  for  most  of  the  Hst 
much  later,  these  rulers  held  an  independent  sovereignty. 
Add  the  many  states  of  the  Central  Asian  Khanates,  of 
Indo-China  and  Malaysia,  and  when  Washington  de- 
hvered  his  Farewell  Address  there  were  at  least  150 
Asiatic  states  to  be  reckoned  with.  Africa  has  but  two 
independent  states  to-day.  Washington  negotiated 
with  twice  this  number  of  African  states  and  savage 
kingdoms,  tribes  and  Mohammedan  Sultanates  made 
the  total  number  of  negotiable  powers  known  on  the 
coast  of  Africa  over  fifty.  Taking  islands  and  in  Wash- 
ington's day,  the  world  had  at  least  400  civilized,  semi- 
civiHzed,  barbarous  and  savage  states,  acting  independ- 
ently, where  to-day  there  are  less  than  sixty.  Nearly  a 
third  of  these  are  in  the  American  hemisphere  where  con- 
solidation or  recolonization  has  been  prevented  through 
the  protection  of  the  United  States, 

It  was  in  such  a  world,  with  as  many  states  in  Europe, 
who  in  Washington's  own  day  had  entered  on  war,  as 
there  are  in  the  world  to-day;  with  sevenfold  this  num- 
ber, in  all  the  earth  and  the  seas  thereof,  ready  to  make 


ENFORCED  PEACE  8i 

all  manner  of  mutual  agreements  for  local  ends,  for  com- 
mon action  in  war,  peace,  or  in  preparation  for  war,  as 
was  true  of  the  demand  of  the  four  Barbary  states, — 
that  Washington  warned  a  growing  nation,  weak, 
peaceful,  and  isolated  that  it  should  not  cast  in  its 
lot  with  the  wrangling,  entangling  alliances  of  Europe, 
or  those  trade  agreements,  which  were  the  early  basis  of 
the  Anglo-Indian  Empire.  Alliances  between  nations, 
peoples  and  dynasties;  mutual  privileges  based  on  re- 
ligion; great  tracts  of  ocean  and  sea,  like  the  Spanish 
Main,  the  Red  Sea  and  Indian  waters,  held  as  a  com- 
mercial preserve  from  the  days  of  discovery;  Malay- 
sian and  Polynesian  islands,  straits,  and  ports  where 
some  hardy  naval  commander  from  the  days  of  Magel- 
lan to  the  days  of  Cook  had  obtained  protection  for  the 
trade  of  his  flag  at  the  cost  of  safety  and  security  for  the 
vessels  of  other  lands; — as  was  England's  avowed  policy 
even  in  the  Mediterranean — these  all  made  a  diplomatic 
labyrinth  in  whose  blind  alleys,  any  state,  any  tribe,  or 
any  colony  might  find  itself  dragged  to  war  by  compacts 
to  which  it  had  never  been  a  party. 

"In  order  that  he  might  rob  a  neighbor  whom  he  had 
promised  to  defend,"  wrote  Macaulay  of  Frederic  the 
Great,  "black  men  fought  on  the  coast  of  Coromandel 
and  red  men  scalped  each  other  by  the  Great  Lakes  of 
North  America."  Louis  XIV  by  a  dynastic  treaty 
sought  to  lower  the  Pyrenees  and  bring  Spain  into  per- 
petual alliance  with  France;  before  the  final  harvest  of 
that  treaty  was  garnered,  the  Malagasy  of  Madagascar 
were  stirred  to  rapine,  Hindus  fought  under  Lally  and 
Clive  in  a  quarrel  not  of  their  making,  and  won  victories 
for  them  infructuous.  New  England  colonists  lie 
buried  to  this  day  about  one  Louisburg  and  another 
Lewisburg  in  Pennsylvania  records  the  high  tide  of  the 
vain  endeavor  of  France  to  preserve  what  had  come  in 
the  close  of  a  struggle  over  the  fruits  of  an  alliance 
whose  only  reUc  to-day  is  the  presence  of  the  last  of  the 


82  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Bourbons  on  the  throne  of  Spain.  From  Charles  V  to 
Napoleon,  there  had  been  no  great  war  in  Western 
Europe  not  rooted  somewhere  in  a  treaty  and  no  Euro- 
pean alliance  whose  seal  was  not  soon  or  late,  whether 
broken  or  kept,  the  sign  of  an  Apocalyptic  destruction 
in  which  "fire  mingled  with  blood  were  cast  upon  the 
earth  and  a  third  part  of  the  sea  became  blood." 

The  alliances  which  had  brought  disaster  to  every 
European  land  were  known  to  Washington,  whose 
patient  reading  of  European  history  is  attested  by  the 
worn  volumes  he  left  at  Mt.  Vernon.  Our  own  treaty 
of  alliance  with  France  in  whose  negotiation  he  had 
shared,  was  challenged  by  Franklin  who  signed  it,  when 
he  opened  negotiations  with  England.  The  Napoleonic 
wars  had  proved  it  a  blunder  from  which  only  Washing- 
ton's wisdom  and  restraint,  denounced  as  cowardice, 
saved  us.  The  country  was  rent  in  twain  by  partisans 
of  France  and  of  Great  Britain.  Mobs  attacked  great 
processions  expressing  sympathy  with  one  or  the  other. 
Washington  holding  even  the  scales  of  neutrality,  de- 
nounced by  the  friends  of  both  parties  and  suffering 
much  that  war  might  not  come,  left  to  his  successor  the 
legacy  of  peace  when  war  was  the  heritage  of  other  lands 
bound  by  leagues  innumerable  which  drew  small  states 
and  weak  through  their  meshes  to  aid  lands,  larger  and 
more  powerful,  in  a  world  of  small  and  warring  states. 

In  the  light  and  fact  of  his  day,  his  advice  to  the 
American  people  to  beware  of  entangUng  alliances 
showed  the  penetration  of  the  statesman  and  the  far- 
sighted  patience  of  a  philosopher  called  to  rule  the 
nation  he  had  founded.  To-day  the  hundreds  of 
states  he  knew  and  read  of  in  history,  atlas  and  books 
of  travel  have  been  consolidated.  Asia  is  divided  be- 
tween three  great  empires — Russia,  England,  and  China, 
and  but  two  of  these  hold  power  over  the  future  of  the 
continent.  All  Africa  is  parcelled  between  European 
powers   weak  or   strong.     In   Europe  and  in  Latin 


ENFORCED  PEACE  83 

America  alone  are  there  left,  in  one  a  group  of  small 
states,  thickly  settled  and,  in  the  other,  sovereignties 
large  in  territory  but  far  short  of  their  opportunity  in 
power  and  population. 

In  Washington's  day  no  nation  was  great  enough  and 
strong  enough  to  command  the  situation  in  any  part  of 
the  world.  No  great  nation  could  act  alone.  Napo- 
leon's failure  proved  this.  Earlier,  Louis  XIV  had  met 
a  like  defeat  in  a  like  purpose  to  secure  soHtary  su- 
premacy. No  common  action  could  then  be  secured  on 
any  subject.  No  common  policy  existed.  No  common 
agreements  guaranteed  safety  to  any  states.  No  one 
power  could  stretch  the  shield  of  its  power  over  two  con- 
tinents as  does  the  United  States,  under  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  over  North  and  South  America.  No  great 
sphere  of  influence  kept  the  peace  over  great  areas  as 
England's  sphere  of  influence  in  Asia  does  over  nearly 
2,000,000  square  miles.  No  such  step  as  neutralization 
for  the  protection  of  small  states  had  been  proposed. 
World  relations  and  responsibilities  the  world  did  not 
yet  know,  recognize  or  protect  even  by  opinion.  The 
larger  powers  of  Washington's  day  were  weak,  too  weak 
to  assert  their  position.  The  smaller  powers  were  too 
numerous  to  be  curbed,  consolidated  or  controlled. 

Through  the  century  that  has  passed  since  Washing- 
ton's warning  was  uttered,  a  continuous  evolution  has 
been  in  progress.  Small  states  have  disappeared  by  the 
hundred.  Large  states  have  grown  stronger.  Inter- 
national law  and  diplomacy  have  created  an  entire 
system  of  new  agencies  for  common  action  and  mutual 
concord.  If  neutralization  has,  for  a  season,  failed  in  one 
significant  instance,  Belgium,  it  is  recognized  as  a  prin- 
ciple and  one  which  will  not  again  be  lightly  attacked. 
The  "  concert "  of  great  powers  has  again  and  again  pre- 
vented war  and  protected  treaties.  As  the  two  colonies 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  united  in  a  Commonwealth  and 
like  mergers  took  place  in  Connecticut  and   Rhode 


84  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Island;  as  these  three  made  their  joint  New  England 
league;  and  later  thirteen  colonies  united  in  the  Con- 
federation and  developed  into  a  Union — so  in  Europe 
and  in  Asia,  compact,  conquest  and  consolidation  have 
laid  the  foundation  and  brought  the  possibility  of  com- 
mon action  not  by  entangling  alliances  among  a  world 
of  many  states,  but  through  the  united  but  indepen- 
dent and  masterful  action  of  a  few  great  states,  strong 
enough  to  enforce  peace.  Two  navies,  of  England  and 
the  United  States,  could  already  create  and  enforce  the 
peace  of  the  waters.  No  single  state  can  to-day  meet 
the  mihtary  resources  of  all  directed  to  an  end  the 
world  approved. 

Through  all  the  nineteenth  century,  the  world  has 
gravitated  to  great  empires  which  hold  the  world's 
destinies.  Six  are  in  Europe;  but  why  tell  their  familiar 
names — ^Austria-Hungary,  England,  France,  Germany, 
Italy  and  Russia;  one  is  in  Asia,  Japan.  United  for 
peace  with  the  eighth  of  these  great  powers,  the  United 
States,  these  seven  realms  could  hold  a  fretful  world  in 
awe.  Seven  of  them  divided  have  brought  the  worst 
war  in  history,  the  worst  in  origin,  in  extent  and  in  the 
evil  worked. 

Washington,  in  his  Farewell  Address,  predicted  the 
coming  power  of  the  American  people,  and  the  wider  re- 
sponsibilities it  must  some  day  meet.  He,  more  than 
any  other  American,  created  our  indissoluble  union  of 
indestructible  states  led  by  him  through  war  to 
constitutional  peace,  that  peace  between  the  oceans 
which  makes  even  the  pax  Romana  but  a  little 
thing. 

To-day  in  a  world  of  a  few  large  states,  he  would  if  he 
were  living  lead  the  United  States  to  a  constructive 
league  between  great  nations,  in  order  to  carry  the  world 
from  perpetual  war  to  lasting  peace  by  substituting  for 
the  entangling  alliances  of  his  day  the  world  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  possible  in  our  day. 


JOHN  BATES  CLARK.  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 
Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  85 

John  Bates  Clark,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D, 
Professor  of  Political  Economy,  at  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, and  Director  of  the  Department  of  Economics 
and  History  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  Inter- 
national Peace,  presented  the  following: 

THE  EUROPEAN  NATIONS-  AND  THE  LEAGUE  PROGRAM 

The  world  demands  a  league  of  some  kind  for  pre- 
serving peace  and,  for  the  first  time,  much  of  the  world 
expects  to  get  it.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  pre- 
sent an  adequate  ground  for  that  expectation.  There  is 
a  natural  development  toward  such  a  union.  Hereto- 
fore the  effort  to  create  it  has  seemed  like  forging  a  ship 
by  oars  and  poles  against  a  rapid  stream,  while  at  pres- 
ent it  is  more  Uke  steering  a  ship  down  such  a  current. 
After  the  war  some  international  unions  will  exist  in  any 
case  and,  if  the  demand  for  peace  in  states  neutral 
and  belUgerent  is  effectively  organized,  one  of  the 
unions  may  quickly  become  a  league  of  peace  and, 
after  an  adequate  time,  it  may  become  the  league 
which  we  hope  to  see  established.  If  so,  the  war 
itself  will  have  carried  us,  not  to  the  final  "federation 
of  the  world,"  but  to  a  half-way  station  on  the  road 
thither. 

Forecasts  for  the  coming  state  of  the  world  are  al- 
ways guesses  but  there  are  some  points  on  which  we  can 
now  guess  with  confidence,  and  the  most  important  of 
them  is  that  the  two  alhances  which  are  now  at  war  will 
continue  in  existence.  They  were  formed  by  their  com- 
ponent states  for  mutual  defense  and  will  still  be 
needed  for  that  purpose.  Not  one  of  these  countries 
can  afford  to  expose  itself  single-handed  to  attacks  of  its 
enemies.  France  will  not  leave  the  shelter  of  the  En- 
tente and  brave  the  entire  power  of  Germany,  nor  will 
any  state  in  either  combination  so  isolate  itself.    It  is 


86  ENFORCED  PEACE 

futile  to  demand  that  states  in  a  firm  protective  union 
should  dissolve  and  trust  for  security  to  a  treaty  with 
present  enemies.  This  single  fact  of  two  powerful  and 
lasting  alliances  already  formed  takes  the  effort  to 
create  a  league  of  peace  completely  out  of  the  Utopian 
realm  to  which  a  PhiUstine  world  has  always  consigned 
it.  While  it  may  prevent  the  immediate  formation  of  an 
all-embracing  imion,  it  creates  a  condition  out  of  which 
such  a  combination  may  later  grow  and  it  fairly  well  en- 
sures peace  in  the  interim. 

Two  international  unions,  each  enormously  powerful, 
are  now  contending  with  each  other  and  the  victorious 
one  will  be  able,  if  it  will,  to  ensure  the  world  against  an- 
other war.  These  international  bodies  have  no  mis- 
givings as  to  using  force.  They  are  now  using  it  with- 
out stint  in  performing  their  original  function  of  pro- 
tecting their  members,  and  they  will  stand  ready  to  use  it 
again  for  a  similar  purpose.  There  is  an  advantage  in 
making  this  fact  the  starting  point  in  planning  a  future 
league  of  nations.  It  will  stand  before  us  two-thirds 
completed. 
P  If  we  should  assume  that  nations  were  quite  inde- 
pendent, and  should  formulate  a  detailed  scheme  for 
uniting  them  in  a  new  alliance  without  reference  to  the 
unions  which  exist,  we  should  encounter  an  army  of 
objectors  who  would  criticise  details  of  the  plan  and 
many  would  reject  the  plan  as  a  whole  because  of  this. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  look  at  one  of  the  alliances  as  it 
will  exist  and  find  that  it  will  be  capable  of  preserving 
the  peace  and  vitally  interested  in  doing  so,  the  main 
question  whether  there  shall  or  shall  not  be  any  league 
of  peace  will  be  settled  and  we  shall  have  nothing  to  de- 
bate except  the  question  whether,  in  some  secondary 
particulars,  it  can  be  improved  by  amendment.  Its 
existence  and  its  chief  features  will  not  be  in  ques- 
tion. 

This  describes  the  probable  situation  at  the  close  of 


ENFORCED  PEACE  87 

the  present  war.  There  are  three  possible  outcomes  of 
it,  namely,  a  draw,  a  crushing  victory  by  one  side,  and  a 
moderate  victory  by  one  side,  leaving  the  opposing  one 
strong.  Most  guesses  favor  the  last  named  alternative. 
Neither  side  will  probably  destroy  its  adversary  and  yet 
one  or  the  other  will  win.  If  that  shall  occur  in  fact, 
there  will  be  the  brighest  outlook  for  permanent  peace 
that  has  ever  existed.  A  league  that  will  be  able  to 
prevent  war  and  profoundly  interested  in  doing  it  will  be 
estabUshed  on  the  European  continent.  The  alHance 
which  wins  the  victory  will  become  ipso  facto  a  league 
of  peace  and  it  will  be  capable  of  becoming,  in  due 
time,  the  nucleus  of  that  greater  federation  of  states 
of  which  idealists  have  long  dreamed.  Let  us  assume 
for  illustration,  that  the  Entente  has  won.  It  contains 
four  great  states,  a  number  of  smaller  ones  and  is  allied 
to  a  great  Asiatic  power.  The  leading  powers  maintain 
a  certain  balance  and  no  one  of  them  preponderates 
over  all  the  others.  There  is  a  small  danger  that  in 
Europe  they  will  trench  on  each  other's  territory, 
though  it  is  possible  that  they  may  have  their  minor 
dissensions  and  need  the  services  of  mediators  or  an 
international  court.  This  is  saying  that  the  chief  in- 
stitutions suggested  by  our  own  platform  would  be  of 
great  service  to  the  victorious  nations  and  would  have  a 
large  chance  of  being  adopted.  If  an  opposing  aUiance 
still  exists,  harmony  and  coherence  among  the  members 
of  the  successful  league  will  be  of  immeasurable  im- 
portance. The  slightest  rift  in  their  union  would  be 
highly  perilous  and  a  positive  division  might  bring  down 
upon  them  at  once  a  powerful  hostile  force.  The  awful 
tragedy  of  the  second  Balkan  war  is  a  warning  written 
on  the  sky  in  letters  of  fire  against  quarrels  between 
members  of  a  victorious  union  of  states,  and  arbitral  in- 
stitutions should  find  favor  with  the  members  of  that 
union,  whichever  it  is,  that  shall  conquer  the  opposing 
one.     So  much  of  our  platform  as  would  create  a  court 


88  ENFORCED  PEACE 

and  a  system  of  arbitration  it  should  welcome  and  put 
into  practice. 

Will  it  also  adopt  the  third  section  of  our  platform — 
the  one  which  provides  for  forcibly  compelling  states 
to  submit  quarrels  to  arbitration  and  adjudication? 
What  our  platform  calls  for  is  a  relatively  modest 
exercise  of  force  and  it  encounters  far  less  opposition 
than  would  arise  if  it  involved  also  enforcing  the 
court's  decisions.  Nevertheless  it  is  the  most  dis- 
puted portion  of  our  platform,  and  possibly  the  great- 
est hght  that  we  can  gain  on  this  question  will  come 
from  asking  how  the  alliance  which  wins  the  present 
war  will  probably  regard  it. 

If  only  one  of  these  international  unions  constituted 
the  league  of  peace,  the  question  of  compelUng  its 
members  to  submit  their  quarrels  to  a  court  or  an 
arbitral  board  would  be  a  complex  one  and  guesses 
as  to  the  answer  would  be  uncertain;  but  conceivably 
it  might  agree  to  this  measure.  With  the  opposing 
alliance  still  in  existence,  any  quarrel  between  the  suc- 
cessful states  would  be  perilous  and  actual  fighting 
would  almost  certainly  lead  to  disaster.  Whether,  on 
the  one  hand,  two  of  the  allied  states  were  left  to  fight 
out  a  quarrel  alone  or,  on  the  other  hand,  all  the  mem- 
bers were  united  in  defending  one  of  them  against  the 
other,  the  calamity  might  be  about  equally  irreparable. 
The  war  will  leave  the  two  alUances  in  such  a  position 
that  an  open  quarrel  between  states  in  the  victorious 
one  would  so  paralyze  it  as  to  put  it  at  the  mercy  of 
its  antagonist.  This,  of  itself,  affords  a  highly  effective 
security  against  quarrehng,  and  whether,  in  the  period 
immediately  following  the  conclusion  of  the  present  war, 
the  successful  group  of  nations  will  or  will  not  bind 
themselves  to  use  their  collective  forces  to  compel  their 
members  to  refer  their  differences  to  some  tribunal  be- 
fore fighting,  it  is  not  easy  to  guess  with  much  confi- 
dence.    What  will  happen  in  a  later  period  is  more  im- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  89 

portant,  and  I  venture  to  predict  that  a  time  will  come 
when  the  enforcement  clause  will  have  a  greatly  in- 
creased chance  of  adoption. 

It  is  far  easier  to  form  a  confident  opinion  as  to  what 
would  happen  if  both  alUances  were  at  once  united  in 
the  same  league  of  peace.  Here  guesses  have  a  broad 
basis  of  fact  to  support  them.  If  the  allies  in  the 
Entente  and  the  Central  powers  are  together  in  the  new 
combination,  can  this  general  body  safely  adopt  the 
provision  for  compelUng  a  resort  to  tribunals?  I  ven- 
ture to  say  that  one  strong  reason  will  prevent  it  from 
doing  this.  To  bind  all  these  nations  immediately 
after  the  war  to  unite  in  attacking  any  one  of  them 
which  should  refuse  to  arbitrate  a  quarrel  might  com- 
pel the  present  alUes  of  the  recalcitrant  state  to  fight 
against  it  in  behalf  of  one  of  their  present  enemies. 
Its  comrades  in  arms  would  have  to  desert  it  and  fight 
for  its  enemy  and  their  own  and,  during  the  period 
when  friendships  and  enmities  are  at  their  height, 
they  are  not  likely  to  do  so. 

Let  us  say  that  a  quarrel  has  arisen  between  England 
and  Germany  over  African  colonies  and  that  England 
regards  these  as  her  sovereign  territory  and  declines 
to  place  her  claim  in  the  hands  of  an  arbitral  court  or 
to  call  in  a  board  of  conciliation.  It  would  be  the  duty 
of  France  to  join  in  attacking  England,  her  present 
ally,  in  behalf  of  Germany,  her  present  enemy;  and 
in  any  quarrel  which  could  arise  between  late  antagon- 
ists, and  in  which  mediation  should  be  refused,  some 
nation  or  nations  would  be  in  this  position.  France 
is  now  bound  to  defend  England  against  attack  by  a 
nation  outside  of  the  Entente;  England  is  under  a 
similar  obligation  toward  France,  and  this  mutual 
bond  is  far  too  essential  to  be  waived.  It  has  saved 
the  French  State  from  defeat  and  dismemberment. 
Intimate  relations  have  grown  up  between  the  coun- 
tries that  are  now  fighting  shoulder  to  shoulder   and 


90  ENFORCED  PEACE 

they  are  very  unlikely  to  tolerate  anything  which  would 
weaken  these  ties.  Any  deliberate  planning  on  their 
part  to  make  a  division  in  their  own  ranks  result  from 
a  quarrel  with  an  outside  power  is  nearly  unthinkable. 
li  venture,  with  deference,  to  express  the  opinion  that, 
if  both  the  present  alliances  should  come  at  once  into 
a  league  of  peace,  the  appUcation  of  force  that  is 
proposed  in  our  platform  would  have  to  be  deferred 
to  a  time  when  the  present  aUgnment  of  friendships 
and  hostiUties  should  have  passed  far  in  the  back- 
ground. 

The  entire  question  of  what  would  be  done  if  the 
two  present  alHances  should  come  at  once  into  a  single 
imion  is  of  less  importance  than  it  would  be  if  there 
were  a  greater  probabiUty  of  their  doing  this.  There 
is  little  risk  in  saying  that  immediately  after  the  war 
they  will  not  so  unite  and  that,  for  the  safety  and  well- 
being  of  the  world,  it  will  be  best  that  they  should 
not  do  so.  A  imion  so  composed  could  not  be  trusted. 
Jealousy,  distrust,  and  a  revengeful  spirit  are  poor 
materials  to  make  a  league  of  peace  from.  There 
would  be  very  little  coherence  in  any  single  body  in 
which  both  the  Teutons  and  the  Western  powers  were 
combined.  Lack  of  coherence  is  the  weak  point  in  a 
league  of  any  kind  and  would  be  a  fatal  point  in  such  a 
composite  body.  This  would  suggest  a  temple  of 
peace  in  which  sticks  of  dynamite  were  inserted  be- 
tween courses  of  stone.  Outside  of  a  league,  however, 
a  hostile  power  may  give  it  the  greatest  coherence 
it  can  possibly  have.  Nothing  can  cement  a  union  of 
states  like  a  great  common  danger.  Inside  of  the 
union  states  full  of  hostility  to  the  other  members  of  the 
League  would,  in  all  probability,  make  its  working  im- 
perfect and  its  existence  precarious. 

The  critical  question  then  is:  does  this  describe  a  per- 
manent condition  and  is  there  no  union  making  for  peace 
into  which  all  the  present  enemies  can  ever  come?   Very 


ENFORCED  PEACE  91 

far  from  it.  There  is  a  type  of  union  with  which  all  of 
them  can  come  at  once.  There  are  things  which 
enemies  can  do  for  their  mutual  benefit,  and  when  they 
have  done  them  many  times,  their  enmity  tends  to  fade 
into  the  background  and  give  place,  first,  to  confidence 
and  good  will  and  positive  friendship.  Time  has  its 
talismans  and  can  cause  what  begins  as  a  forced  and  un- 
welcome toleration  of  one  people  by  another  to  convert 
itself  by  easy  stages  into  actual  fraternity.  There  is  a 
highway  in  sight,  along  which  unfriendly  nations  can 
walk,  if  they  will,  toward  and  finally  to  the  realm  of 
fraternal  union.  They  must  make  treaties  of  peace  and 
can  make  treaties  of  arbitration.  In  due  time  they 
can  cooperate  in  putting  life  into  the  institutions  at  The 
Hague.  France,  England,  Russia  and  Italy  on  the 
one  side,  and  Germany,  Austria,  and  Turkey  on  the 
other,  with  their  several  smaller  allies,  can  together 
create  a  High  Court  of  Nations.  They  can  develop 
and  codify  international  law.  They  must  resume 
their  economic  activities  and  can  so  direct  them  that 
causes  of  friction  shall  gradually  be  reduced  and  com- 
mon interests  shall  be  magnified.  They  can  hold 
conferences  at  intervals  and  let  them  become,  as 
decade  after  decade  shall  pass,  more  frequent  and 
influential.  In  the  end,  let  us  profoundly  hope,  a 
single,  strong  and  binding  league  of  nations  can  be 
created  with  every  institution  foreshadowed  by  the 
program  of  our  own  organization,  and  others  besides, 
all  buttressed  by  common  interests  and  vitalized  by 
community  of  feeling.  Then  may  armies  and  navies 
shrink  to  small  dimensions  and  the  laboring  power 
they  have  absorbed  may  be  used  to  develop  the  re- 
sources of  the  earth  and  conquer  poverty — of  which 
there  will  be  a  vast  amount  to  be  conquered.  In  the 
midst  of  the  most  terrific  war  of  history  cosmic  forces 
have  steadily  tended  in  the  direction  of  this  outcome. 
The  things  that  are  seen  are  frightful  but  temporary, 


92  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  things  that  are  unseen  are  eternal.  Out  of  one  of 
the  fighting  leagues  may  evolve  the  federation  that, 
later,  will  convert  dreadnaughts  into  cargo  carriers, 
huge  guns  into  tools  of  industry  and  the  fighting  in- 
stinct of  men  into  healthful  rivalry  in  the  activities  of 
peace.  The  beginning  of  it  all  is  a  victorious  league 
emerging  from  a  war ;  the  end  is  the  banishment  of  the 
war  demon  and  the  creation  of  what  would  to-day  seem 
hke  a  paradise.  In  the  furnace  of  an  awful  strife  we 
are  fashioning  at  this  moment  the  beams  and  girders 
of  a  peace  temple  which  will  be  no  mere  vision,  but  a 
substantial  earthly  reality,  having,  however,  the  form 
and  color  of  the  brightest  vision  that  the  imagination 
of  man  can  paint. 


R.  G.  RHETT 

President  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States 


CHAPTER  IV 

AMERICAN  INTERESTS  AFFECTED  BY 
THE  LEAGUE  PROGRAM 

One  of  the  obvious  topics  requiring  considera- 
tion by  the  first  annual  assemblage  was  a  con- 
sideration of  the  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  from  the  standpoint  of  various  National 
interests  affected.  An  informative  paper  showing 
how  the  business  interests  of  the  country  viewed 
the  League's  program  was  presented  by  R.  G. 
Rhett,  of  Charleston,  S.  C,  President  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Rhett's  paper  follows : 

AMERICAN  BUSINESS  AND  THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE 
PEACE 

Had  any  one  attempted  to  tell  you  the  views  of  the 
business  men  of  this  country  on  any  proposition  four 
years  ago,  it  could  only  have  been  his  personal  opinion^ 
and  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  verify  its  accuracy. 
There  was  no  practical  way  in  which  these  views  could 
have  been  collected  and  expressed.  There  were  na- 
tional trade  organizations  interested  in  particular  lines 
of  business  any  of  which  could  have  ascertained  the 
views  of  their  members.  There  were  local  chambers 
of  commerce  any  of  which  Ukewise  could  have  ascer- 
tained the  opinions  of  the  business  men  in  their  respec- 
tive locaUties.    But  it  was  only  in  April,  191 2,  that  an 

93 


94  ENFORCED  PEACE 

organization  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing the  collective  views  of  the  members  of  both  na- 
tional trade  associations  and  local  chambers  of  com- 
merce located  in  every  part  of  the  nation.  It  is  true 
that  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States 
has  not  enrolled  in  its  membership  all  such  organizations, 
but  it  has  750  of  them,  comprising  more  than  350,000 
business  men,  firms,  and  corporations,  in  which  every 
state  in  the  Union  is  represented.  When  they  speak 
with  the  two-thirds  majority  required  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Chamber,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
voice  the  sentiments  of  the  business  men  of  the  coun- 
try. 

It  is  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  National 
Chamber  that  its  policies  shall  come  fresh  from  its 
membership  in  response  to  referenda  in  which  the  ques- 
tions are  presented  clearly  and  concisely  and  supported 
by  the  best  arguments  obtainable  pro  and  con.  Neither 
the  President  nor  the  Board  of  Directors  has  the  power 
to  determine  what  these  policies  shaU  be.  It  is  their 
duty  to  see  that  these  questions  of  policy  are  properly 
submitted  to  the  membership  in  the  referenda,  and 
where  there  is  a  two-thirds  majority  vote  in  favor 
of  any  proposition,  it  is  their  further  duty  to  carry 
such  proposition  into  effect. 

In  November,  1915,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
National  Chamber  sent  out  a  referendum  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  proposals  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 
In  response  to  that  referendum  more  than  96  per  cent,  of 
the  vote  was  in  favor  of  the  proposition  that  the  United 
States  take  the  initiative  in  securing  conferences  for 
the  purpose  of  estabUshing  rules  for  the  better  protec- 
tion of  Hfe  and  property  at  sea;  to  be  followed  by  suc- 
cessive conferences  for  the  adoption  of  amendments  to 
meet  changed  conditions.  By  practically  the  same 
majority  the  membership  voted  to  approve  of  the  prop- 
osition that  this  country  take  the  initiative  in  forming 


ENFORCED  PEACE  95 

a  league  of  nations,  which  shall  agree  to  submit  justi- 
ciable questions  arising  between  any  of  its  members  to 
an  international  court,  and  non-justiciable  questions 
to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  their  respective  decision 
or  recommendation,  before  resorting  to  war.  With 
reference  to  the  proposals  for  enforcing  these  agree- 
ments first  by  economic  pressure  and  then  by  military 
force,  the  vote  of  the  organization  members  revealed 
a  majority  of  77  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  former  but 
only  64  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  latter.  This  was  six- 
teen votes  short  of  the  two-thirds  vote  required  to 
commit  the  chamber  to  its  support. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  on  the  question  of  employ- 
ing miUtary  force,  the  large  chambers  gave  a  majority 
of  a  Uttle  over  63  per  cent.,  the  small  chambers  a  little 
over  65  per  cent.,  and  the  trade  associations  about  67 
per  cent — the  average  of  all  organizations,  as  I  have 
said,  being  64  per  cent. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  note  some  of  the  comments  of 
the  chambers  in  casting  their  votes.  For  instance,  the 
Peoria  Association  of  Commerce  in  voting  against  either 
economic  pressure  or  military  force,  states  that  in  view 
"of  the  alleged  unpreparedness  of  the  country  it  desires 
to  protest  against  the  government  of  the  United  States 
entering  upon  any  such  propositions  as  those  embodied 
in  recommendations  4  and  5"  (Economic  pressure  and 
military  force). 

Again,  the  Merchants'  Association  of  New  York,  in 
declining  to  vote  on  the  question  of  military  force,  states 
that  "  had  question  5  been  submitted  so  as  to  cover  the 
proposition  of  international  police  power  by  the  exercise 
of  military  force  without  being  predicated  upon  the  use 
of  economic  pressure  the  vote  of  the  association  would 
have  been  cast  in  its  favor."  This  organization,  by  the 
way,  casts  ten  votes,  and,  in  passing,  let  me  say  that  no 
chamber  has  more  than  ten  votes. 

Again,  the  Pittsburg  Chamber  of  Commerce  did  not 


96  ENFORCED  PEACE 

vote  either  for  or  against  the  recommendations  concern- 
ing economic  pressure  or  miUtary  force  as  in  its  opinion 
the  problem  of  creating  the  necessary  means  for  the  en- 
forcement of  the  decrees  of  any  international  tribunal 
should  be  left  to  the  deUberation  of  the  proposed  inter- 
national conference. 

It  therefore  may  be  safely  said  that  the  business  men 
of  this  country  are  heartily  in  accord  with  all  the  pro- 
posals of  the  League  save  that  pro\iding  for  the  use  of 
military  force  in  the  event  of  the  failure  of  economic 
pressure.  With  reference  to  this  the  majority  of  the 
business  men  seem  to  be  in  favor  of  it,  but  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  of  America,  under  its 
constitution  and  by-laws,  is  not  committed  to  its  en- 
dorsement or  support. 

Business  ought  to  be  and  is  pecuHarly  sympathetic 
with  any  effort  to  substitute  cooperation  for  conflict. 
Competition  under  proper  restraint  is  a  constructive 
and  beneficent  force,  but  beyond  control  it  becomes  com- 
mercial warfare.  It  is  now  many  years  since  the  loss 
and  waste  resulting  from  this  kind  of  warfare  turned  the 
thoughts  and  activities  of  business  men  to  cooperation. 
It  required  sacrifices  of  individual  prerogatives  and  ad- 
vantages at  times,  but  the  resultant  good  so  outbalanced 
the  bad — the  gain  so  outweighed  the  loss — that  every- 
where we  find  the  business  men  seeking  cooperation  and 
avoiding  conflict.  The  changes  in  methods  of  travel 
and  communication  which  have  brought  business  men 
closer  together  have  likewise  brought  both  the  people 
and  the  governments  of  nations  into  closer  contact. 
The  Hague  conferences  did  much  to  cultivate  a  spirit  of 
cooperation  amongst  them,  and  indeed,  marked  progress 
seemed  to  be  making  in  the  direction  of  universal  peace. 
But  the  fact  that  the  greatest  of  wars  which  the  world 
has  ever  known  is  now  raging  furnishes  abundant  proof 
that  the  time  had  not  yet  arrived,  in  1914,  when  the 
great  nations  of  the  world  were  willing  to  make  the 


ENFORCED  PEACE  97 

sacrifices  necessary  to  prevent  war  by  enforcing  peace. 
Is  not  the  time  rapidly  approaching,  and  will  it  not  be 
ripe  at  the  close  of  the  present  war,  when  the  spirits  of 
both  people  and  the  rulers  of  all  nations  have  been  so 
chastened — some  by  suffering,  others  by  the  contempla- 
tion of  that  suffering — for  the  formation  of  a  League 
which  gives  promise  of  securing  to  the  world  a  hope  of 
permanent  peace,  with  sacrifices  which  seem  infini- 
tesimal in  comparison? 

For  many  years  it  looked  as  if  man  had  turned  his 
thoughts  and  energies  from  the  conquest  of  his  fellow- 
man  to  the  conquest  of  nature.  His  genius  was  har- 
nessing one  by  one  her  mighty  forces  and  bending  them 
to  his  use.  Steam,  electricity,  gas,  and  many  other 
treasures  gathered  from  her  exhaustless  storehouse  were 
yielding  him  power  for  production,  transportation, 
travel  and  communication  in  infinite  volume  and 
variety.  When  his  ingenuity  began  to  turn  some  of 
these  forces  into  instruments  of  destruction,  the  con- 
sequences were  so  appalling,  that  it  looked  as  if  these 
new  weapons  of  war  might  prove  the  most  effective  in- 
strumentalities for  insuring  peace.  It  was  a  vain  hope 
as  the  present  war  has  proved;  but  the  horrors  of  the 
battle  are  obscuring  its  splendors.  War  is  no  longer  so 
handsome  as  it  was — to  use  the  President's  expression 
— and  we  may  well  hope  that  the  achievements 
of  peace  may  outshine  the  deeds  of  war  as  now  con- 
ducted. 

Many  methods  of  securing  peace  have  been  tried, 
covering  limited  areas  and  limited  combinations  of 
nations,  and  in  some  instances  with  marked  success;  but 
steam,  electricity,  and  gas  have  brought  all  nations  so 
close  together  that  war  between  any  of  them  seriously 
affects  almost  every  other. 

With  the  opening  of  the  European  War,  business  in 
this  country  for  a  while  was  paralyzed;  exchanges  were 
closed;  values  were  suspended;  bankruptcy  stared  whole 


98  ENFORCED  PEACE 

sections  of  the  nation  in  the  face;  distress  and  suffering 
was  precipitated  in  almost  every  section  and  would 
probably  have  continued  had  not  one  set  of  belligerents 
controlled  the  seas.  Confusion  and  chaos  in  business 
reigned  everywhere  not  only  in  this  country  but  in  the 
entire  world.  Great  prosperity  is  now  coming  to  many 
people  in  America,  in  consequence  of  the  peculiarly 
fortimate  conditions  in  which  we  have  been  placed, 
but  upon  the  cessation  of  hostiHties  confusion  will 
again  reign  and  business  wiU  require  another  adjust- 
ment. 

It  is  clear  that  our  need  is  for  some  method  of  securing 
practically  universal  peace.  The  general  propositions 
presented  by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  make  for  that 
end  and  should  appeal  to  every  nation.  It  isn't  pro- 
posed to  bind  any  nation  to  abide  the  decision  of  a 
tribunal  nor  accept  the  recommendations  of  a  council  of 
conciliation,  but  it  does  force  all  nations  in  the  League 
to  submit  their  contentions  to  an  investigation  and 
criticism  which  will  naturally  be  world-wide.  It  does 
compel  every  nation  joining  it  to  give  the  most  careful 
and  deliberate  consideration  to  every  controversy  and 
especially  to  the  consequences  likely  to  ensue  from  con- 
flict; and  it  also  enables  the  people  of  the  countries  in- 
terested to  understand  the  question  and  to  have  some 
voice  in  the  course  which  their  governments  shall 
pursue. 

Agreements  unsupported  by  some  means  of  enforce- 
ment amount  to  Uttle — we  have  seen  how  little  in  the 
present  conflict.  Can  the  great  nations  agree  upon  an 
effective  method  of  enforcement  which  shall  not  itself 
contain  dangerous  germs  of  conflict?  The  proposals  of 
the  League  present  two  progressive  methods.  The 
National  Chamber  endorses  the  first  and  doubts  the 
second;  but  out  of  them  can  probably  be  worked  prac- 
tical safeguards  if  the  nations  can  be  induced  to  ap- 
proach the  problem  in  a  spirit  of  cooperation  by  mutual 


ENFORCED  PEACE  99 

concession — ^keeping  in  mind  always  the  comparison  of 
the  gains  with  the  sacrifices. 

There  is  another  point  of  view  which  appeals  strongly 
to  business.  Together  with  a  great  majority  of  the 
people  the  business  man  is  calling  for  greater  prepara- 
tion for  defense  not  only  in  a  military  way  but  in  an 
economic  way.  The  vote  which  has  just  closed  in  re- 
sponse to  a  referendum  of  the  National  Chamber  on 
that  subject  shows  just  how  strongly  he  feels  on  this 
question.  Over  99  per  cent,  of  the  vote  was  in  favor 
of  the  military  forces  of  this  country  both  on  sea  and 
land  being  so  increased  and  the  industrial  resources  so 
coordinated  as  to  make  fully  available  the  military,  in- 
dustrial, and  financial  strength  of  the  nation.  Ninety- 
nine  per  cent,  of  the  vote  was  in  favor  of  the  restoration 
of  the  Navy  to  its  former  position  as  second  in  the  At- 
lantic with  surplus  in  the  Pacific  for  the  adequate  protec- 
tion of  our  coast,  our  possessions,  and  our  trade  routes. 
Furthermore,  over  94  per  cent,  of  the  vote  was  in  favor 
of  compulsory  miHtary  training  for  our  youths. 

And  why  does  he  feel  so  strongly  on  the  subject? 
Not  because  he  wants  this  country  to  become  an  aggres- 
sor, but  because  he  wants  insurance  against  the  aggres- 
sions of  other  countries.  He  wants  to  remove  all  temp- 
tation from  every  nation  or  combination  of  nations  to 
attack  us,  by  convincing  them  that  it  would  be  a  hope- 
less task. 

While  he  believes  in  insurance  and  uses  it  in  every  way 
possible,  his  instinct  is  to  seek  the  best  security  at  the 
least  cost.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  extensive  military 
preparedness  has  not  proven  an  altogether  effective  and 
safe  insurance.  It  necessarily  cultivates  a  spirit  which 
is  itself  a  constant  menace.  It  is  a  necessary  form  of  in- 
surance so  long  as  other  nations  insist  on  military 
preparation,  but  the  proposals  of  the  League  would  seem 
to  open  the  way  for  a  limitation  upon  it  and  a  substitu- 
tion of  what  even  in  its  proposed  form  would  seem  in- 


loo  ENFORCED  PEACE 

finitely  more  eflfective  and  less  expensive,  and  what,  if 
once  begun,  may  lead  to  better  and  better  safeguards. 

As  to  the  cost,  I  wonder  how  many  have  the  faintest 
conception  of  what  it  amounts  to.  In  this  country 
where  we  have  paid  Uttle  attention  to  our  army,  and  in 
late  years  have  permitted  our  navy  to  fall  behind,  the 
proportion  of  our  revenues  devoted  to  preparations  for 
defense  and  to  provision  for  those  who  have  partici- 
pated in  its  wars  is  almost  beyond  belief.  The  Massa- 
chusetts Commission  on  the  Cost  of  Living  made  a  re- 
port in  1910,  showing  that  71^  per  cent,  of  the  national 
income  for  the  31  years  previous  thereto  had  been  ex- 
pended for  these  purposes  in  the  following  proportions: 
Army,  20.2  per  cent.;  Navy,  11.9  per  cent.;  Pensions, 
28.7  per  cent.;  Interest  on  debt,  10.7  per  cent.  It 
would  appear  then  that  only  28I  per  cent,  of  these 
revenues  are  devoted  to  the  purposes  of  the  civil  ad- 
ministration of  national  affairs  and  national  develop- 
ment. It  is  particularly  striking  that  the  cost  of  taking 
care  of  those  who  have  participated  in  war  or  those  im- 
mediately dependent  upon  them  is  greater  than  the 
entire  cost  of  the  civil  administration  of  national 
afifairs  and  of  all  goverrmiental  developments  of  our 
country. 

Whatever  business  men  can  contribute  toward  the 
success  of  the  purposes  which  the  League  has  in  mind,  I 
feel  sure  that  they  will  be  willing  to  contribute  cheer- 
fully and  generously.  Those  who  have  organized  the 
League  and  have  carried  it  forward  to  its  present  splendid 
position  in  the  pubUc  esteem  and  confidence,  deserve  the 
warmest  congratulation  and  the  heartiest  support  from 
the  people  of  the  entire  country,  and  I  am  confident  that 
they  have  it  in  full  measure. 

The  attitude  of  business  interests  toward  the 
League  program  was  further  discussed  by  Harry 


ENFORCED  PEACE  loi 

A.  Wheeler,  LL.D.,  vice-president  of  the  Union 
Trust  Company,  of  Chicago,  former  president  of 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States, 
and  secretary  of  the  Chicago  Association  of  Com- 
merce in  the  following  address: 

THE  league's   service   TO   THE   WORLD 

This  has  been  a  remarkable  day,  and  the  strength, 
the  force,  and  the  clarity  of  the  able  addresses  to  which 
we  have  listened  must  have  impressed  you,  as  they  have 
me,  with  the  fact  that  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
under  the  splendid  leadership  which  it  possesses,  is 
born  to  a  great  world  service  at  a  time  when  the  world 
needs  service  and  sacrifice,  as  at  no  other  time  in  its 
history,  to  restore  its  equilibrium. 

All  that  has  been  in  my  mind  to  say  upon  the  subject 
assigned  to  me  seems  insignificant  in  the  face  of  the 
weightier  considerations  here  advanced,  and  I  am 
strengthened  in  my  previously  formed  opinion  that  it 
must  be  infinitely  easier  to  discuss  the  political,  senti- 
mental, or  humanitarian  significance  of  the  purposes  of 
the  League  rather  than  to  discuss  the  effect  of  these 
purposes  upon  the  material  prosperity  of  the  nation. 

Material  prosperity  is  variously  interpreted,  and 
all  too  often  the  definition  possesses  no  broader  horizon 
than  individual  selfishness.  There  is  a  predatory 
prosperity  which  has  its  birth  in  opportunism  and  sets 
the  rewards  of  shrewdness  and  cunning  above  the 
general  welfare  of  the  state.  There  is  a  constructive 
prosperity  which  disregards  speculative  considerations 
or  temporary  advantage  and  pins  its  faith  to  stable 
evolutionary  processes.  Those  whose  vision  does  not 
extend  beyond  the  selfish  gain  of  to-day  would  not  see 
in  the  platform  of  the  League  an  assurance  of  material 
prosperity,  but  those  who  recognize  the  reality  of  that 
higher  selfishness,  which  profits  most  when  the  whole 


I02  ENFORCED  PEACE 

body  politic  is  raised  to  a  higher  level  of  civilization, 
will  share  with  us  in  the  belief  that  in  the  platform  of  the 
League  is  embodied  principles  which  make  for  the 
healing  of  national  strife. 

The  world  of  business  is  supposed  to  be  coldly- 
material,  yet  the  world  of  business  is  for  settling 
its  own  and  international  disputes  by  conciliatory 
methods. 

In  September,  1912,  when  all  civilized  nations  sent 
their  representatives  to  Boston  to  participate  in  the 
Fifth  International  Congress  of  Chambers  of  Com- 
merce, what  sentiment  was  most  frequently  uttered 
and  productive  of  the  most  enthusiastic  applause? 

It  was  the  contention  by  men  of  business  from  all 
lands  that  international  amity  should  be  preserved  by 
the  arbitration  of  international  disputes,  and  by  con- 
ciliation wherever  diflferences  failed  to  lend  themselves 
to  arbitration.  The  very  principles  for  which  this 
League  stands  were  the  principles  most  vehemently 
spoken  by  men  of  all  lands  and  most  generously  ap- 
plauded by  all. 

We  are  told  that  the  present  war  is  being  fought  that 
commercial  opportunity  may  be  unimpaired.  That  is  a 
libel  upon  commerce.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  in 
the  name  of  commerce  that  such  a  war  as  is  now  pro- 
ceeding in  Europe  could  possibly  be  fought,  nor  for 
commercial  advantage,  nor  for  commercial  supremacy. 
Diplomacy  has  failed  civilization,  and  desires  to  find 
some  excuse,  no  matter  how  bad,  for  its  failure  when 
put  to  the  crucial  test  in  July,  19 14. 

Additional  evidence  of  the  interest  of  commerce 
in  the  principles  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  may  be 
found  in  the  Sixth  International  Congress  of  Chambers 
of  Commerce,  held  in  Paris  during  the  early  summer  of 
1914.  There,  a  month  before  the  declaration  of  war, 
the  commercial  interests  of  fifty  or  more  nations  re- 
iterated their  good  will  for  each  other,  and  their  desire 


ENFORCED  PEACE  103 

for  encouraging  a  peaceful  means  of  solving  both  com- 
mercial and  political  differences. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  has  a  great  respon- 
sibihty  and  the  time  is  crucial.  This  nation  of  ours 
likewise  has  a  great  responsibility,  and  its  time  is 
crucial.  If  this  conference  shall  be  dissolved  without 
finding  a  way  in  which  to  carry  to  the  farthest  corners 
of  our  country  those  principles  for  which  we  stand, 
if  we  shall  go  back  to  our  homes  without  finding  ways 
and  means  of  bringing  public  sentiment  up  to  a  point  of 
agreement  with  what  we  know  to  be  the  only  logical 
process  of  setthng  international  differences,  there  will 
rest  upon  us  a  responsibility  which  we  shall  not  bear 
lightly  in  the  years  to  come,  and  we  shall  place  our 
nation  in  a  position  where  in  the  days  of  readjustment 
it  will  be  infinitely  more  difficult  to  treat  with  other 
nations. 

To  my  mind  the  United  States  stands  as  a  beacon 
at  the  crossroads  of  the  world.  To  what  harbor  shall 
we  light  the  nations?  To  the  harbor  of  fancied  ex- 
clusiveness  where  the  anguish  and  strife  of  a  world  in 
readjustment  finds  no  responsive  chord?  To  the  har- 
bor of  selfishness  where  material  gains,  brought  in  part 
from  the  misfortune  of  others,  are  used  as  a  barrier 
against  the  appeals  of  those  who  stretch  out  hands 
imploring  aid?  To  the  harbor  of  inordinate  ambition 
where  the  vision  is  blinded  to  all  but  the  goal  of  our 
own  supremacy?  In  these  harbors  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  has  no  place  and  no  anchorage,  but  if 
we  shall  undertake  to  light  the  nations  to  a  new  civiliza- 
tion, where  might  shall  not  be  right,  where  the  strong 
shall  find  it  a  privilege  to  help  the  weak,  and  the  rich  to 
succor  the  poor,  where  national  power  and  national 
influence  and  national  wealth  shall  be  held  as  a  sacred 
trust  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  there  we  shall  find 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  with  its  principles  broad 
written  over  the  banner  of  time,  and  there  this  nation 


r 


L 


104  ENFORCED  PEACE 

will  fulfil  its  destiny  in  guiding  the  way  for  the  nations 
of  the  world  into  a  harbor  of  continued  peace  and 
amity. 

The  interests  of  the  workingman  in  any  con- 
structive effort  to  promote  peace  with  justice  was 
discussed  by  Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  His  address  fol- 
lows: 

AMERICAN    LABOR    AND    A    CONSTRUCTIVE    SETTLEMENT 
OF   THE    WAR 

No  class  has  more  to  lose  and  less  to  gain  in  war  than 
the  workers.  No  class  renders  such  sacrificial  service 
during  war  and  bears  such  staggering  burdens  after 
war  as  does  labor.  In  war,  labor  sees  the  results  of 
years  of  struggle  for  wider  justice  swept  away.  In  one 
mad  moment  the  clock  of  industrial  progress  may  be 
turned  back  for  a  generation.  War  diverts  the  mind 
of  peoples  from  the  constructive  work  of  humanizing 
and  democratizing  the  relations  of  men.  Recognizing 
this,  workingmen  the  world  over  have  avowed  their 
allegiance  to  the  cause  of  peace  and  have  sworn  un- 
dying opposition  to  the  forces  that  make  for  war. 

Before  the  present  war,  the  working  people  of  the 
several  countries  now  in  conflict  sincerely  gave  inter- 
national pledges  that  they  would  not  fight  each  other. 
I  confess  that  I  banked  strongly  upon  these  pledges, 
but  in  an  hour  of  crisis,  brought  about  by  forces  over 
which  workingmen  had  little  control,  their  pledges 
were  shattered  by  the  hurried  ultimatum  of  Kaiser 
and  King,  of  President  and  Czar.  Secret  diplomacy 
and  arbitrary  autocracy  lifted  the  battle  standards, 
raised  the  cry  that  the  integrity  of  the  fatherland  was 
at  stake,  and  placed  the  workingmen  of  all  the  nations 


Copyright,  1902,  /.  E.  Purdy,  Boston  No.  8 

SAMUEL  GOMPERS 
President,  American  Federation  of  Labor 


ENFORCED  PEACE  105 

in  a  position  where  adherence  to  their  pledges  and  to 
the  larger  interests  of  humanity  would  have  branded 
them  as  traitors.  Under  the  urgency  of  the  situation, 
with  autocracy  and  miUtarism  resorting  to  their  accus- 
tomed stage  tricks  for  arousing  patriotic  emotions, 
instinct  prevailed  over  reason  and  the  laboring  men 
of  the  nations  rushed  into  the  paths  that  had  been 
marked  out  by  the  diplomatic  and  ruling  classes. 

But  when  the  smoke  of  this  conflict  is  cleared,  with 
renewed  energy,  the  laboring  men  of  the  world  will 
begin  to  lay  anew  the  foundations  for  an  international 
peace  that  will  safeguard  and  minister  to  the  interests 
of  justice,  democracy,  and  larger  opportunity  for  all. 

But  for  even  a  more  immediate  reason,  America's 
workers  are  vitally  interested  in  the  kind  of  settle- 
ment that  shall  come  at  the  end  of  this  war  and  in 
its  effect  upon  industrial  conditions  in  the  United 
States.  For  it  is  obvious  that  at  the  epd  of  this  war 
labor  may  have  to  enter  into  great  struggles  to  get  and 
hold  its  just  dues.  These  struggles  may  become  more 
acute  in  the  United  States  should  an  industrial  reaction 
ensue  after  the  close  of  the  war. 

Organized  labor  stands,  of  course,  for  group  action 
instead  of  an  individual  competitive  scramble  with 
those  in  direst  need  setting  the  standard.  Of  course, 
when  there  is  a  scarcity  of  work  and  a  multitude  of 
workers,  collective  bargaining  faces  an  added  difficulty. 

And  yet  such  conditions  are  the  definite  outlook, 
if  the  settlement  of  the  present  war  is  the  ordinary 
one,  a  mere  diplomatic  jockeying  on  the  part  of  the 
nations  for  the  best  position  in  the  next  race  for  arma- 
ments, the  kind  of  settlement  that  is  sure  to  be  made 
unless  labor,  agriculture,  business,  and  all  classes,  can 
effectively  cooperate  for  a  different  and  better  kind  of 
settlement. 

Let  me  state  briefly  what  will  cause  this  reaction,  if 
it  comes.     If,  at  the  end  of  this  war,  nothing  but  war 


io6  ENFORCED  PEACE 

is  left  as  a  method  for  settling  the  future  disputes  that 
are  bound  to  arise  between  nations,  every  nation,  our 
own  included,  will  be  forced  into  an  extravagant  com- 
petition in  armaments  as  a  defensive  preparation  against 
the  next  great  conflict  that  will  be  but  a  question  of 
years.  The  interest  bills  and  the  expense  of  recon- 
structing demoraHzed  industries  will  be  burden  enough 
to  bend  the  back  of  Europe  for  a  generation,  but  if 
there  be  added  the  greatest  naval  and  miUtary  appro- 
priations of  history,  it  becomes  clear  that  Europe  will 
face  the  most  desperate  need  of  income  she  has  ever 
known.  To  meet  this  need,  Europe  must  carry  over 
into  the  economic  struggle  for  the  recovery  of  the 
markets  of  the  world  much  of  the  grim  spirit  of  sacrifice 
that  she  has  shown  in  war,  and  institute  the  most 
severe  and  destructive  competition  known  to  industrial 
and  business  history.  In  that  competition,  our  de- 
mocracy, its  institutions,  its  methods,  and  its  prosperity 
N/  will  be  put  under  a  greater  strain  than  it  has  ever 
known. 

Whether  or  not  this  suicidal  competition  is  to  be 
inevitable  depends,  largely,  upon  whether  or  not  the 
mind  and  heart  of  the  world  unite  in  substituting  a 
higher  standard  of  moraUty — law  for  war,  in  the 
settlement  of  future  disputes  between  nations,  thereby 
making  less  necessary  another  competitive  race  for 
armaments,  and  thus  removing  one  of  the  biggest 
expenditures  that  will  make  necessary  the  destructive 
race  for  trade  which  I  have  mentioned. 

The  fear  of  an  industrial  and  business  reaction  in 
America  is  not  born  of  theory,  but  is  based  upon  evident 
proof  that  the  present  military  war  is  to  be  followed 
by  an  economic  war  unparalleled  in  the  intensity  and 
destructiveness  of  its  competition.  Definite  organiza- 
tion is  already  under  way  in  practically  all  of  the  nations 
of  Europe  in  preparation  for  a  race  for  markets  that 
will  be  the  goal  of  this  economic  war.    This  organiza- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  107 

tion  is  being  directed  not  only  by  the  governments 
of  Europe,  but  also  by  the  private  industrial  and  busi- 
ness interests  of  Great  Britain,  France,  Russia,  Ger- 
many, and  other  belligerents.  It  is  the  declared  purpose 
of  the  statesmanship  and  commercial  leadership  of 
Europe  to  convert  the  present  military  alUances  into 
future  trade  alliances.  The  plans  being  made  for  this 
economic  war  are  animated  not  only  by  a  desire  for 
retaliation  against  former  enemies  but  to  capture  the 
greatest  possible  share  of  the  trade  of  the  world,  as  a 
means  for  liquidating  war  debts,  sustaining  credit, 
rebuilding  war-damaged  industry,  and  financing  such 
military  preparations  for  the  future  as  conditions  may 
render  inevitable. 

Every  day  brings  added  proof  also  that  the  nations  of 
Europe  will,  at  the  end  of  the  war,  set  up  formidable 
tariff  barriers  that  will  seriously  restrict  trade  between 
the  nations  now  at  war  and  force  them  to  compete 
more  keenly  in  the  neutral  markets  of  the  world,  in- 
cluding the  invitingly  rich  market  of  the  United  States. 
The  erection  of  these  tariff  barriers  will  be  forced  upon 
the  governments  of  Europe,  not  only  to  meet  the  urgent 
need  of  revenue,  but  also  to  make  each  nation  as  nearly 
self-sufficient  as  possible,  for  this  war  will  have  proved 
and  enforced  the  fact  that  a  nation  that  can  most 
nearly  supply  all  its  needs  by  its  own  industries,  were  it 
walled  in  from  the  world,  will  be  best  able  to  protect 
itself  and  conserve  its  interests  in  the  event  of  war. 

The  extraordinary  pressure  for  funds  will  force 
exports  from  Europe  upon  a  bigger  scale  than  ever 
before.  Europe  will  be  more  eager  to  sell  and  less 
able  to  buy  than  ever  in  history.  If  Europe  exports  at 
a  maximum  and  imports  at  a  minimum,  the  outlet  for 
the  products  of  American  labor  will,  of  course,  be 
restricted.  The  poverty  of  Europe  will  make  her  not 
only  a  poor  customer  but  also  a  fierce  competitor. 
Our  whole  problem  of  foreign  trade  will  be  made 


io8  ENFORCED  PEACE 

increasingly  difficult.  The  result  may  be  the  piling 
up  in  America  of  a  great  surplus  of  manufactured  goods. 
Even  before  the  war,  we  were  beginning  to  feel  the 
pressure  of  our  surplus  and  the  necessity  for  increased 
foreign  trade.  Such  a  serious  limitation  upon  the 
exportation  of  American  goods,  as  any  extensive  busi- 
ness reaction  after  the  war  would  involve,  would,  in  a 
short  time,  make  for  scarcity  of  work  and  react  in- 
juriously upon  American  labor. 

Going  back  a  moment  to  the  proposition  with  which 
we  started:  The  prosperity  and  welfare  of  American 
^  labor  are  largely  dependent  upon  the  prosperity  and 
welfare  of  the  American  nation.  Granted  great  pros- 
perity to  the  nation,  with  a  wide  margin  of  profit  to  the 
employers,  and  granted  the  proper  organization  of 
labor  for  collective  bargaining,  there  is  always  the 
chance,  at  least,  to  reach  justice  and  equity;  but  if  the 
United  States  suffers  a  serious  business  reaction,  the 
American  employer  may  have  a  less  margin  on  which 
to  deal  with  the  problem  of  wages,  and  coUective  bar- 
gaining will  face  an  increasingly  difficult  problem. 

All  of  which  means  that  American  labor  has  far- 
reaching  interests  at  stake  in  doing  its  share  to  help 
bring  about  such  a  settlement  of  the  present  war  as  will 
prevent  any  abnormal  reaction  upon  the  prosperity  of 
the  United  States,  and  will  give  the  industrial  and 
business  interests  of  the  whole  world  an  opportunity 
to  compete  along  more  nearly  normal  lines. 

But  above  and  beyond  the  desire  of  America's 
workers  to  secure  a  settlement  that  will  safeguard  the 
material  interests  of  themselves  and  the  nation  is  their 
desire  to  see  a  settlement  that  will  render  war  less 
probable  and  peace  more  permanent  in  the  future;  for 
the  interests  of  the  men  and  women  of  labor  are  identi- 
fied with  those  of  peace.  War  has  never  meant  to  them 
opportunity  for  gain  or  exploitation.  It  has  always 
meant  to  them  sacrifice  and  suffering  in  the  actual 


ENFORCED  PEACE  109 

fighting  of  the  war  and  the  bearing  of  heavy  burdens, 
after  the  war.  Certainly  working  people  have  bought 
with  their  flesh  and  blood  the  right  to  a  voice  in  deter- 
mining the  issues  of  peace  and  war;  and  in  the  general  "V 
reorganization  that  will  follow  the  present  war,  the 
workers  will  insist  upon  having  voice  and  influence. 
Labor  is  committed  to  the  principle  that  peace  is  the 
basis  of  all  civilization. 

Peace  is  not  a  chance  by-product  of  other  conditions; 
it  is  the  fundamental  necessity  of  aU  government  and 
of  all  progress — industrial,  intellectual,  social,  and 
humanitarian.  One  of  the  main  purposes,  therefore, 
of  governments  and  of  all  classes  within  governments 
must  be  the  maintenance  of  more  permanent  inter- 
national peace. 

Since  the  burdens  of  war  fall  more  heavily  upon  the 
workers  than  upon  any  other  class,  and  since  war 
diverts  attention  from  the  progress  of  that  social  and 
industrial  democracy  which  holds  the  hopes  of  labor 
in  its  balance,  it  follows  that  labor,  more  than  any  other 
class,  is  interested  in  the  estabhshment  and  main- 
tenance of  a  more  permanent  international  peace. 

Although  bearing  most  of  its  burdens,  labor  has  had 
little  to  say  in  the  declaration  and  conduct  of  the  wars 
of  the  past,  but  in  self-defense  and  in  the  interest  of 
civilization,  labor  must  have  an  increasing  voice  in  the 
peace  of  the  future. 

In  any  program  looking  toward  the  establishment  of 
more  permanent  peace  among  nations,  labor  will  insist 
upon  the  following  principles: 

I.  It  must  be  a  program  under  which  the  military 
forces  of  the  world  will  be  rescued  from  the  dictation 
of  arbitrary  autocracy  and  absolute  secret  diplomacy 
and  dedicated  to  the  maintenance  of  a  higher  standard 
of  morals,  founded  upon  law  and  justice;  a  program  that 
will  so  safeguard  the  use  of  military  power  that  it  can- 
not be  used  by  the  reactionary  forces  of  privilege  in  im- 


no  ENFORCED  PEACE 

perialistic  aggression,  or  dragged  like  a  red  herring  across 
the  path  of  democratic  progress. 

2.  It  must  be  a  program  elastic  enough  to  admit  of 
those  fundamental  changes  that  the  growing  life  of  the 
world  makes  inevitable.  Any  international  arrange- 
ment that  does  not  afiford  peaceful  methods  of  securing 
the  results  that  now  can  be  achieved  only  by  successful 

^  fighting  will  make  Httle  headway  against  war.  Labor 
will  oppose  any  federation  of  nations  so  organized  that 
the  more  powerful  nations  can  use  the  machinery  to 
maintain  the  status  quo  against  the  demands  for  change 
made  in  the  interest  of  democracy  and  larger  oppor- 
tunity for  the  masses. 

3.  It  must  be  a  program  under  which  the  small 
nation,  as  well  as  the  large  nation,  will  have  a  free 
hand  in  every  just  and  individual  development;  a 
program  that  will  make  it  impossible  for  a  few  strong 
nations  to  dictate  the  policies  and  development  of  the 
world.  It  must  not  deny  to  small  and  dependent  states 
that  final  right  of  revolution  that  sometimes  is  the  only 
road  to  justice  and  freedom. 

4.  It  must  be  a  program  that  will  give  the  masses 
greater  influence  in  those  decisions  that  plunge  nations 

Nj  into  war;  that  is  to  say,  a  program  under  which  the 
powers  of  autocracy  and  absolute  secret  diplomacy 
cannot,  over  night,  rush  a  nation  into  war  before  the 
citizenship  of  the  nation  has  a  chance  to  express  itself. 

5.  It  must  be  a  program  under  which  the  inter- 
national machinery  that  is  created  will  afford  a  medium 
through  which  all  classes  of  society  can  voice  their 

V  I  judgment  and  register  their  demands.  We  must  not 
delude  ourselves  into  thinking  that  the  international 
problem  will  be  solved  entirely  by  the  estabHshment 
of  an  international  court  along  traditional  fines,  pre- 
sided over  by  lawyers  to  pass  judgment  upon  violations 
of  established  international  law.  The  fact  is  that  the 
real  causes  of  modern  wars  are  not  so  much  violations 


ENFORCED  PEACE  in 

of  established  law,  as  they  are  conflicts  over  new  prob- 
lems and  new  needs  that  have  not  yet  become  a  part 
of  international  law.  So  that  any  adequate  interna- 
tional program  must  include  the  establishment  of  a 
system  of  stated  international  conferences  in  which  the 
representatives  of  such  democratic  interests  as  labor 
and  business  can  present  and  discuss,  not  under  any 
established  rules  of  evidence  but  in  the  spirit  of  impar- 
tial examination,  those  difficulties  and  differences  that 
threaten  to  give  rise  to  war. 

These  principles  represent  not  only  the  international 
program  for  which  labor  will  work  in  the  future,  but 
they  represent  essentially  the  program  for  which  labor 
has  been  contending  through  the  years.  But  labor 
understands  that  a  program  so  vast,  involving  as  it  does 
the  interests  of  every  human  group,  cannot  be  estab- 
Ushed  and  maintained  by  one  class  alone.  Labor  under- 
stands that  humanity  is  one;  that  the  problem  of 
humanity  is  a  common  problem,  that  any  international 
order  of  things  to  be  permanent  must  safeguard  the 
interests  of  all  classes.  Therefore,  labor  is  profoundly 
concerned  in  the  creation  and  adoption  of  some  inter- 
national program  for  which  all  classes,  labor,  agricul- 
ture, and  business  can  work  side  by  side  in  sincere  co- 
operation for  those  principles  that  will  best  insure  the 
triumph  of  justice  and  opportunity  for  all  classes  the 
world  over. 

In  so  far  as  the  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  represents  an  effort  to  meet  the  conditions  I 
have  outhned,  it  demands  the  interest  and  careful 
scrutiny  of  every  man  who  has  the  interests  of  labor  at 
heart. 

As  I  understand  it,  the  essential  proposals  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  are  these: 

I.  That  the  nations  shall  band  themselves  together 
in  a  federation  and  agree  to  delay,  in  every  instance^ 
the  actual  declaration  of  war  until  the  dispute  at  issue 


V 


112  ENFORCED  PEACE 

has  been  thoroughly  examined  by  an  international 
tribunal,  and  the  pubUc  opinion  of  the  world  given  a 
chance  to  express  itself. 

2.  That  there  shaU  be  an  International  Court  to 
consider  questions  that  can  be  decided  upon  established 
law  and  evidence. 

3.  That  there  shall  be  a  Council  of  ConciHation  to 
consider  questions  that  are  not  ordinarily  regarded  as 
justiciable,  such  as  questions  of  national  honor. 

4.  That  in  addition,  there  shall  be  at  stated  intervals 
international  conferences  for  the  progressive  amend- 
ment of  international  law. 

5.  That  the  nations  of  the  League  shall  agree  to  turn 
their  united  strength — first  in  the  form  of  a  business 
and  economic  boycott,  and  finally  in  concerted  miUtary 
action  if  the  boycott  is  not  effective — against  any  one 
of  their  number  that  wages  war  without  first  submitting 
its  dispute  for  complete  examination  to  one  of  the 
International  Tribunals  created. 

The  hope  of  the  League's  program  is,  I  take  it,  that 
by  forcing  nations  to  stop  and  count  ten  before  striking, 
there  will  result  a  cooUng  off  period  that  will  greatly 
reduce  the  probability  of  war,  if  not  prevent  most  wars. 
There  is  no  proposal  that  the  decrees  of  the  Court  or 
Council  shall  be  enforced;  if,  after  the  decision  of  the 
Court,  a  nation  feels  that  it  must  fight  to  gain  justice 
and  freedom  for  its  rightful  development,  the  League 
provides  no  organized  penalties.  The  program  does 
not  propose  any  tightly  organized  international  govern- 
ment, but  suggests  that  the  nations  shall  cooperate  to 
form  a  sort  of  International  Vigilance  Committee  and 
say:  If  any  one  nation  starts  to  "shoot  up  the  world" 
without  J&rst  giving  legal  processes  a  chance  to  adjust 
its  difiiculty,  the  other  nations  shall  treat  that  nation  as 
an  outlaw  and  shaU  pool  their  economic  and  mihtary 
power  in  an  efifort  to  force  it  to  give  law  a  chance. 

It  is  not  for  me,  by  word  of  mouth,  to  commit  the 


ENFORCED  PEACE  113 

laboring  men  of  America  to  any  particular  program  in 
international  aflFairs;  but  I  may  be  permitted  to  com- 
ment upon  the  way  the  proposals  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  appeal  to  me  as  a  representative  of 
labor. 

The  League's  program  wisely  refrains  from  attempt- 
ing to  stop  the  present  war.  Hating  war  as  I  do,  I  am 
free  to  confess  that  if  I  could  stop  this  war  now  by  a  turn 
of  my  hand,  I  would  not  do  it.  I  hold  that  something 
must  be  determined  by  this  war,  and  that  something  is 
whether  the  future  belongs  to  autocracy  and  mihtarism 
or  to  democracy,  liberty,  and  humanity.  These  are  the 
points  at  issue  and  they  have  not  yet  been  determined. 

The  League's  program  also  wisely  recognizes  that  we 
have  not  yet  reached  a  point  where  the  total  disarma- 
ment of  nations  is  a  practically  possible  proposal.  The 
labor  movement  is  a  militant  movement,  and  the  work- 
ers understand  the  necessity  for  power  and  its  uses.  The 
labor  movement  has  never  advocated  the  abolition  of 
agencies  for  the  enforcement  of  right  and  justice,  or  the 
abolition  of  the  military  arm  of  government,  but  it  does 
demand  that  military  forces  shall  be  so  organized  as  to 
prevent  their  misuse  and  abuse  as  instruments  of 
tyranny  against  the  workers;  to  render  impossible  the 
pernicious  results  of  militarism — the  building  up  of  a 
separate  military  caste  and  the  subversion  of  civic  Ufe  to 
military  government  and  military  standards.  If  this 
program  can  succeed  in  making  our  military  and  naval 
forces  not  only  our  arm  of  defense,  but,  in  addition,  our 
contribution  toward  the  maintenance  of  more  permanent 
peace  throughout  the  world,  a  long  step  in  this  direction 
may  have  been  taken. 

The  League's  program  wisely  recognizes  the  danger  of 
creating  a  league  of  nations  that  would  undertake  to 
enforce  the  decisions  o/an  International  Court,  and  con- 
tents itself  with  enforcing  the  submission  to  an  Inter- 
national Court  of  all  disputes  for  examination.     Until 


'? 

V 


114  ENFORCED  PEACE 

democracy  is  more  nearly  universal,  until  democracy  be- 
comes a  social  and  industrial  fact  as  well  as  a  political 
catchword,  a  League  with  power  to  enforce  decisions 
would  almost  certainly  become  the  repressive  tool  of  the 
reactionary  and  privileged  forces  of  the  world. 

The  League's  program,  by  suggesting  the  use  of  an 
economic  boycott  on  an  international  scale  as  a  means  of 
enforcing  law  and  justice,  pays  a  tribute  to  the  increas- 
ing importance  and  power  of  industrial  forces  in  world 
affairs.  But  such  a  boycott  must  be  left  to  the  vol- 
untary action  of  the  peoples  of  all  nations.  What  an 
International  Court  or  League  should  do  is  to  invite  the 
representatives  of  all  nations  involved  for  a  hearing  and 
then  declare  its  findings,  holding  the  nation  at  fault 
guilty  of  such  violations  as  the  judgment  of  the  Court 
or  League  may  determine. 

If  a  nation  or  nations  fail  or  refuse  to  be  represented, 
judgment  should  be  taken  by  default,  but  in  either  event 
the  opinion  of  the  Court  or  League  should  be  declared 
to  the  world  as  to  which  nation  is  responsible  for  the 
threatening  conditions.  An  official  or  compulsory  boy- 
cott must  be  avoided  at  all  hazards. 

Labor  wiU  insist  that  such  careful  thought  and  con- 
structive statesmanship  be  put  into  the  working  out  of 
the  methods  in  each  country  by  which  such  a  boycott 
would  be  applied,  that  the  workers  would  be  insured 
against  the  possibility  of  being  forced  to  bear  more  than 
their  just  share  of  the  necessary  sacrifice  involved,  and 
that  their  freedom  of  action  would  not  be  jeopardized. 
The  wage  earners  of  the  United  States,  who  have  so  often 
proved  their  patriotic  loyalty  in  the  civic  life  of  the 
nation,  as  well  as  in  the  nation's  wars,  stand  ready  to 
bear  their  just  share  of  any  economic  sacrifice  that  may 
be  necessary  to  maintain  the  peace  of  the  world,  but 
they  must  insist  that  it  be  only  their  just  share. 

But  the  final  question  is  not  whether,  at  this  stage,  we 
all  agree  upon  every  detail  of  a  program.    Evidence  is 


ENFORCED  PEACE  115 

daily  accumulating  that  indicates  that  some  such  a 
league  of  nations  is  practically  certain  to  be  formed,  if 
not  at  the  end  of  this  war,  in  the  not  far  distant  future. 
The  bitter  experience  of  this  war  will  prove  to  all 
nations  that  the  system  of  small  group  alliances,  armed 
to  the  teeth  and  eternally  growling  at  each  other,  is  a 
poor  way  to  run  the  business  of  the  world.  It  seems 
practically  certain  that  instinct,  as  well  as  reason,  will 
react  against  this  system  of  armed  peace  toward  some 
larger  federation  of  the  nations.  Since  such  a  Court  or 
League  as  contemplated  appears  to  be  the  inevitable 
goal  toward  which  the  whole  evolution  of  law  and  gov- 
ernment is  tending,  the  laboring  men  of  this  and  every 
other  nation  will  feel  it  their  duty  and  privilege  to  lift 
their  voice  in  counsel  at  every  step  of  the  plans  and 
propaganda,  in  order  to  make  more  certain  the  triumph 
of  democratic  principles  and  methods  in  whatever  final 
form  such  an  international  institution  may  take. 

Carl  Vrooman,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Agricul- 
ture, who  was  called  on  at  the  last  moment  by  Presi- 
dent Taft  to  take  the  place  of  Oliver  Wilson,  presi- 
dent of  the  National  Grange,  discussed  the  program 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  American  farmer  as  follows: 

AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE  AND  THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE 
PEACE 

I  come  from  the  great  Middle  West  which,  as  a  friend 
of  mine  has  said,  is  " honeycombed  with  pacifism."  The 
Middle  West  has  more  peace  sentiment  in  it — has  more 
pacifists  to  the  square  mile,  than  any  other  portion  of 
this  country,  and  this  is  all  the  more  interesting  because 
the  Middle  West  is  one  of  the  places  where  the  people 
have  profited  most  from  this  war.     Farmers  of  that 


ii6  ENFORCED  PEACE 

section  have  been  feeding  the  millions  of  people  in 
Europe  who  but  for  them  would  have  gone  without 
bread.  Kansas  alone  last  year  received  $125,000,000 
more  on  her  wheat  crop  alone  than  she  received  on  an 
average  during  the  preceding  five  years.  And  yet,  re- 
ceiving as  she  has  this  profit  from  the  war,  the  Middle 
West  is  filled  as  no  other  part  of  the  nation  is,  with  a 
militant  peace  sentiment. 

But  do  not  misunderstand  me.  While  the  great 
American  wheat  belt  is  coining  money  as  the  result  of  the 
present  European  War,  the  farmers  of  that  fair  region  la- 
bor under  no  delusions  as  to  what  it  would  mean  to  them 
should  this  country  be  plunged  into  the  present  Euro- 
pean vortex  of  destruction.  I  suppose  there  is  no  class 
of  our  citizens  that  would  suffer  more  if  the  United 
States  should  become  involved  in  war  than  would  our 
farmers. 

We  farmers  do  business  on  a  smaller  margin  of  profit 
than  do  any  other  class  of  business  men.  Our  profits 
run  all  the  way  from  5  per  cent,  down  to  nothing,  and 
then  on  below  zero,  until  the  farmer  who  is  farming  for  a 
living  becomes  merged  in  the  agriculturist  who  is  farm- 
ing as  a  pastime.  The  result  is  that  any  considerable 
increase  in  taxes  hits  the  farmer  harder  than  any  one  else 
because  it  takes  away  from  him  a  large  proportion  of  his 
net  profits.  If  there  is  any  one  thing  that  is  always 
certain  to  increase  the  taxes  of  the  country  by  leaps  and 
bounds,  it  is  war.  In  many  of  the  European  countries 
to-day  one  half  of  the  people's  incomes  is  being  taken 
by  the  government  for  war  uses. 

Moreover,  with  the  outbreak  of  hostilities,  credit 
facihties  are  always  seriously  curtailed,  and  again  the 
farmer  is  the  one  who  in  such  a  crisis  always  suffers  most. 
Our  banking  system  has  been  developed  primarily  to 
meet  the  needs  of  our  urban  population.*  After  its 
needs  are  taken  care  of,  the  farmer,  if  he  has  gilt-edged 

This  statement  was  made  before  the  passage  of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Act. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  117 

security  and  will  pay  the  price,  is  allowed  to  take  what  is 
left.  In  time  of  war  the  chances  are  that  there  would 
be  practically  nothing  left  for  the  farmer  in  the  way  of 
credit  facilities.  Any  business  man  knows  that  to  be 
deprived  of  credit  facilities  means  to  be  financially  ham- 
strung. 

And  thirdly,  and  most  important  of  all,  in  case  of  war 
a  very  large  percentage  of  our  armies  would  necessarily 
be  made  up  of  our  farmer  boys.  And  however  much  the 
farmer  objects  to  heavy  and  unnecessary  taxes,  however 
much  he  objects  to  having  his  business  crippled  by  hav- 
ing his  credit  facilities  curtailed,  still  more  does  he 
object  to  war  because  of  the  heavy  toll  of  life  it  exacts 
from  the  young  manhood  of  the  land.  In  no  crisis  in 
our  history  have  the  farmers  been  slow  to  present  their 
best  and  bravest  as  a  bulwark  for  their  country's  de- 
fense. They  always  have  shown  their  wiUingness,  when 
the  necessity  was  imperative,  to  pour  out  their  treasure 
and  their  blood  without  stint  in  defense  of  this  great 
democratic  republic,  the  world's  greatest  citadel  of 
human  liberty.  But  they  are  irreconcilably  opposed  to 
any  war  that  can  be  avoided  without  loss  of  honor  and 
our  national  self-respect. 

I  have  spoken  in  the  Middle  West  a  good  many  times 
during  the  past  six  months.  Recently  I  addressed  some 
eight  or  ten  of  the  agricultural  colleges,  speaking  in  the 
morning  on  agriculture  and  in  the  afternoon  on  military 
education.  I  have  never  had  more  inspiring  audiences 
than  those  audiences  of  young  men  in  uniform — young 
men  representing  not  a  military  caste,  young  men  not 
destined  for  the  professional  exercise  of  arms,  young 
men  prepared  to  do  the  hard  work  of  the  world — to  ex- 
ercise the  peaceful  pursuits  of  husbandry.  And  yet 
along  with  their  education  in  scientific  agriculture,  they 
were  gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  science  or  art  of  national 
self-defense.  As  a  result  of  this  system  of  military  edu- 
cation in  our  land-grant  colleges,  while  West  Point  turns 


ii8  ENFORCED  PEACE 

out  about  125  graduates  each  year,  ofl&cers  ready  to  take 
the  field,  the  agricultural  colleges  turn  out  each  year 
5,000  men  most  of  whom  within  six  months  of  intensive 
mihtary  training  under  actual  war  conditions  could  be 
made  into  officers  capable  of  leading,  with  splendid 
efficiency,  our  troops  against  a  foreign  foe. 

Now  we  farmers  always  try  to  reduce  things  to  their 
lowest  common  denominator  and  to  their  simplest 
terms.  Therefore,  if  I  speak  of  this  great  theme  in 
simple  terms,  you  will  understand  that  this  is  the  way 
that  these  ideas  project  themselves  to  the  average 
farmer. 

From  time  immemorial,  civilization  has  rested  upon 
the  broad  backs  of  the  agricultural  laborers  of  the  world, 
and  yet  before  their  eyes  has  opened  up  no  vista  of  op- 
portunities for  them,  or  for  their  children,  save  only  that 
of  a  narrow  path,  with  the  horror  of  unending  drudgery 
on'^^the  one  side  and  the  hell  of  starvation  on  the  other. 
Millet's  "Man  with  the  Hoe,"  celebrated  by  Edwin 
Markham's  marvelous  poem,  painted  a  true  picture  of 
agriculture  before  the  advent  of  what  we  know  as  the 
"  science  "  of  agriculture — before  man  had  learned  how  to 
focus  trained  intelligence  upon  the  problems  of  hus- 
bandry and  thus  to  learn  how  to  unlock  the  hidden  re- 
sources of  nature  and  bring  forth  a  golden  flood  of  agri- 
cultural products  greater  than  man  had  ever  seen  before. 

In  the  past,  when  the  farmer  was  the  mat  of  civiUza- 
tion,  he  looked  around  him  on  every  side  and  through 
his  heavy  and  hopeless  eyes  he  saw  nothing  but  enemies. 
The  consumer  was  his  enemy,  trying  to  beat  down  his 
prices — or  he  thought  he  was.  The  middleman  also 
was  his  enemy  or  he  thought  he  was;  he  saw  himself 
girdled  around  with  a  steel  band  of  enemies  conspiring 
to  pin  him  to  the  earth.  He  rebelled  at  this  situation 
and  thought  that  his  only  hope  for  an  increase  of  pros- 
perity for  himself  and  for  his  family  lay  in  war — politi- 
cal and  industrial  war.     But  in  arriving  at  this  point  of 


ENFORCED  PEACE  119 

view,  he  merely  accepted  the  same  view  of  life  that 
had  been  held  for  thousands  of  years  by  every 
class  in  society.  This  was  the  conception  of  hfe  that 
dominated  human  thought  on  this  planet  until  very 
recently. 

But  that  conception  is  giving  way  now  to  a  truer  one. 
For  example,  the  Federal  Department  of  Agriculture  is 
discovering,  and  helping  the  farmer  to  discover,  that  he 
is  not  surrounded  by  enemies,  and  that  even  those  who 
to-day  are  his  enemies  are  potentially  his  friends.  And 
while  in  the  past  it  sometimes  has  been  true,  as  the 
farmer  has  suspected,  that  the  business  man  regarded  him 
very  much  as  the  farmer  regarded  his  sheep — as  a 
creature  to  be  sheared,  and  sometimes  even  to  be  skinned 
— to-day  the  business  man  also  is  getting  a  new  and 
truer  conception  of  business.  Our  more  enlightened 
business  men  are  becoming  imbued  with  a  new  ideal,  and 
why?  Because  the  white  light  of  science  has  illumined 
their  pathway,  as  it  has  the  pathway  of  the  farmer. 
Both  are  learning  to-day  this  new  lesson,  or  rather  this 
new  application  of  an  old  truth,  that  civilization  pro- 
gresses as  fast  as,  and  no  faster  than,  man  learns  to  co- 
operate with  his  fellows  in  the  pursuit  of  their  common 
interests.  We  have  demonstrated  recently  to  the  farm- 
ers of  the  country  that  with  the  aid  of  science  and  by 
working  together  instead  of  at  cross  purposes,  they  can 
increase  enormously  the  productivity  of  human  toil. 
And  not  only  can  they  increase  their  yields  per  acre,  but 
they  can  also  increase  the  prices  they  get  for  those 
yields. 

The  future  in  this  world  belongs  to  those  nations 
which  learn  soonest  and  most  thoroughly  that  the  best 
way  to  enrich  themselves  is  by  increasing  their  pro- 
ductivity; by  unlocking  the  hidden  resources  of  nature; 
by  inducing  their  citizens  to  work  together  for  their  com- 
mon advantage  instead  of  wasting  their  energies 
fighting  about  their  dififerences,  real  or  imaginary.   Only 


.I20  ENFORCED  PEACE 

thus  can  man's  energy  be  used  at  the  highest  pitch  of 
human  efficiency. 

Having  learned  this  lesson  on  our  farms  and  in  our 
factories,  why  not  apply  the  same  great  truth  to  our  in- 
ternational problems?  Therefore,  I  think  I  am  safe  in 
saying  that  a  majority  of  farmers  would  be  willing  to 
present  for  your  respectful  consideration  the  suggestion 
that  the  time  has  come  for  the  formation  of  an  inter- 
national syndicate  of  nations  to  underwrite  the  peace  of 
the  world. 

Anything  that  is  properly  underwritten,  is  an  assured 
success.  An  underwriting  syndicate,  before  it  makes  a 
move  or  risks  a  dollar,  always  concentrates  enough 
power  behind  a  venture  to  put  it  through.  That  is, 
as  I  understand  it,  the  foundation  principle  upon  which 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  working.  When  the 
farmer  considers  the  problem  of  peace  and  war  on  an 
international  scale,  he  asks  himself  this  question, 
"Where  peace  exists  to-day  on  our  planet,  how  has  it 
been  brought  about,  and  how  is  it  maintained?" 

So  far  as  I  am  aware  there  is  only  one  known  method 
of  maintaining  a  permanent  peace,  and  that  is,  first  of 
all,  by  the  creation  of  a  dominant  public  consciousness 
in  favor  of  peace.  You  cannot  have  peace  if  a  majority 
of  the  people  are  not  in  favor  of  peace.  But  once  you 
have  established  a  public  opinion  that  favors  peace — 
not  a  unanimous  public  opinion,  for  such  a  thing  does 
not  exist  on  this  planet  and  probably  never  will — but  a 
dominant  public  opinion,  and  that  public  opinion  is 
able  to  establish  some  tribunal  to  which  it  can  refer 
disputes,  and  to  back  up  that  tribunal  with  a  poHce 
power  strong  enough  to  enforce  its  decrees,  then  you 
will  be  able  to  estabHsh  peace  on  a  sound  and  perma- 
nent basis.  And  that  is  the  only  way  that  peace  has 
ever  been  established  in  any  country. 

Now  is  it  true  that  a  majority  of  mankind  are  in 
favor  of  peace?    If  it  is  true,  if  a  majority  of  the  power 


ENFORCED  PEACE  121 

— the  financial  power,  the  intellectual  power,  the  will 
power  of  mankind,  is  for  peace,  then  assuredly  we  can 
devise  some  mechanism  through  which  that  power  can 
operate  in  the  interest  of  peace.  But  if  a  majority 
of  the  men  of  this  generation  were  animated  by  the 
predatory  spirit,  then  all  talk  of  peace  upon  the  part 
of  this  generation  would  be  unavailing. 

How  about  our  nation?  It  is  divided  into  two  great 
classes — two  great  schools  of  thought.  On  one  side 
we  see  the  men  who  are  wiUing  to  give  to  society  an 
equivalent  for  what  they  get  from  society,  who  are 
willing  to  create  all  the  wealth  that  they  utiUze  and 
consume  on  this  planet.  These  are  the  workers,  the 
creators,  the  people  who  know  that  the  best  pathway 
to  power  is  by  the  way  of  productive,  not  predatory, 
effort.  But  there  are  some  people  still  among  us — 
reversions  to  type — who  have  the  motives  and  the 
mental  outlook  of  the  cave  man — who  still  beUeve  it  is 
the  correct  thing  to  go  out  into  the  world  to  see  how 
much  one  can  acquire,  by  cunning  or  strength,  of  the 
product  of  other  people's  toil.  In  other  words,  there 
are  still  people  among  us  who  are  animated  by  the  pred- 
atory instincts  of  the  jungle.  Fortunately  these 
people  are  not  in  a  majority  in  this  country.  These 
people  are  not  in  a  majority  in  most  countries,  and  that 
is  our  only  sound  basis  of  hope  for  the  establishment  of 
an  enduring  peace. 

How  can  we  coordinate  the  minds,  the  will  power, 
the  hopes,  and  the  material  power  of  the  people  on  this 
planet  who  beUeve  in  the  productive  process,  instead 
of  the  predatory  process,  as  the  only  legitimate  path- 
way to  power?  That  is  the  basic  problem  before  this 
assembly  and  before  the  world  to-day.  That  it  is 
possible  of  solution  no  one  should  doubt  who  realizes 
that  the  masses  of  every  country  in  the  world  are  in 
favor,  not  only  of  mihtary  peace,  but  also  of  industrial 
peace.     The  masses  of  every  country  are  beUevers  in 


122  ENFORCED  PEACE 

liberty,  and  believers  in  justice.  The  love  of  liberty 
and  justice  is  not  dependent  upon  culture  spelled  with 
a.  C  or  a.  K.  Therefore,  if  we  can  formulate  here  some 
plan  that  will  give  expression  to  this  slowly  but  ir- 
resistibly growing  sentiment  of  mankind  in  favor  of  the 
productive  type  instead  of  the  predatory  type,  then 
peace  as  an  abiding  possession  on  our  planet  is  assured. 

Thus  it  becomes  apparent  that  our  hope  of  peace  is 
founded  on  something  more  soHd  than  "bits  of  paper," 
or  the  understandings  and  misunderstandings  of  diplo- 
mats, or  the  kaleidoscopic  adjustments  and  readjust- 
ments of  secret  diplomacy,  dictated  by  the  supposed 
requirements  of  high  finance. 

Remember  the  Scriptures  say  not  that  the  peace 
talkers  but  that  the  peace  makers  shall  be  called  the 
children  of  God.  We  have  a  good  deal  of  peace  talk 
going  on  from  one  end  of  this  country  to  the  other. 
Some  of  it  has  been  very  useful,  and  probably  aU  of  it 
has  had  its  uses,  but  if  this  organization  has  any  one 
distinguishing  virtue,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  that  it  can  be 
counted  on  to  get  results,  that  it  is  composed  of  the 
genuine  "peace  makers"  of  these  United  States. 

Newton  D.  Baker,  B.A.,  LL.B.,  Secretary  of 
War,  made  the  following  remarks; 

AMERICAN  IDEALS  AND  THE   LEAGUE  PROGRAM 

Some  years  ago  I  went  through  the  mountains  of 
West  Virginia  in  an  automobile,  along  a  road  projected 
by  George  Washington.  No  other  automobile  had  as 
yet  been  through  that  country,  and  at  what  was  a  post 
house,  originally,  on  top  of  a  mountain,  I  saw  a  splen- 
did-looking American  woman  standing  on  the  doorstep. 
Just  beyond  there  was  a  fork  in  the  road,  and  I  stopped 
to  ask  which  of  these  two  roads  led  to  Martinsburg. 
Her  reply  was: 


Copyright,  Underwood  y  Underwood 

NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  B.A.,  LL.B. 

Secretary  of  War 


ENFORCED  PEACE  123 

"I  have  not  the  least  idea.  It  is  said  to  be  about 
twelve  miles  down  one  of  these  roads.  I  was  born  in 
this  house,  I  have  lived  here  forty  years,  I  have  never 
been  farther  away  from  it  than  the  church  you  see 
yonder,  and  I  never  expect  to  be." 

And  a  thousand  times  since  then  I  have  wondered 
whether  there  was  some  little  landmark,  some  little 
monument,  relatively  two  miles  away,  that  was  cir- 
cumscribing my  vision;  whether  I  was  exactly  like  that 
good  woman  who  had  selected  hterally  two  miles  as  the 
limit  of  periphery  of  her  extensive  migrations;  whether 
like  her  I  was  really  tied  to  some  post  not  much  farther 
away. 

I  want  to  talk  about  American  ideals,  not  as  though 
they  were  some  fixed  and  unchanging  thing,  not  as 
though  the  founders  of  this  government  and  projectors 
of  our  institutions  had  discovered  something  impossible 
for  human  intelligence  to  exceed,  but  as  an  expanding 
and  growing  thing,  a  cloak  that  will  cover  the  frame 
of  our  activities  and  that  will  grow  as  they  grow. 

It  is  always  difficult  to  summarize  and  abstract  the 
ideals  of  people.  We  rarely  see  people  when  they  are 
busy  about  their  ideals.  If  we  go  out  into  Hfe  we  find 
this  man  with  his  plough  and  that  man  with  his  plane, 
the  lawyer  with  his  books  and  the  doctor  with  his 
medicines,  busy  with  the  ordinary  things  of  Hfe, 
but  not,  except  in  extreme  cases,  about  their  ideals; 
certainly  not  about  the  common  ideal  that  we  speak 
of  as  the  ideal  of  America,  and  it  is  only  when  some  great 
invocation  is  uttered  to  all  the  people  that  each  man 
forgets  his  special  interest,  the  farmer  turns  his  hand 
away  from  the  plough,  and  the  artisan  drops  his  plane, 
and  the  lawyer  forgets  his  books,  and  we  touch  the 
thing  that  can  be  called  the  nation's  ideal. 

It  is  fortunate  that  the  ideals  of  America  cannot  be 
put  into  a  paragraph  or  a  sentence.  You  can  state 
almost  anything  in  language  if  you  are  willing  to  make 


124  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  necessary  disclosures,  but  the  difficulty  about  sen- 
tences and  definitions  is  that  they  are  inelastic.  So  I 
think  we  have  no  statement  of  American  ideals  that  can 
be  regarded  as  a  final  thing,  and  yet  I  beUeve  if  you 
take  our  history  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
down  to  the  present  time  it  will  be  foimd  that  America 
has  stood  for  the  opportunity  of  man  in  the  world  as 
against  things,  that  we  have  had  an  attitude  that  pre- 
disposed us  toward  human  freedom  and  human  Uberty, 
that  we  have  desired  to  estabhsh  justice  among  our- 
selves, and,  treating  ourselves  as  an  aggregate,  to  be 
just,  and  to  invite  justice  from  others. 

American  history,  for  the  first  century,  was  a  struggle 
to  preserve  a  kind  of  individuahsm  which  was  ideal 
under  the  conditions  which  civilization  had  then  as- 
sumed. Thomas  Jefferson  said  a  short  time  before  he 
died,  in  writing  to  a  friend :  "  We  are  a  nation  of  farm- 
ers and  small  merchants,  and  there  is  no  manufactur- 
ing among  us."  He  was  thinking  of  us  as  individuals 
aggregated  into  a  nation.  Each  man  was  in  a  sense 
economically  sufficient  for  himself  and  his  pohtical 
philosophy,  was  a  corollary  of  his  economic  self- 
sufficiency.  Jefferson  was  filled  with  the  classical 
ideas  that  came  from  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  Greece,  and  the  territorial  subdivisions  of  the 
human  race  were  an  ever-present  thought  in  his  mind. 
But  we  have  outlived  all  that.  We  have  come  to  a 
time  now  when  no  man  fives  to  himself,  when  the  artisan 
at  his  bench  is  dependent  upon  some  producer  of  raw 
material  in  the  antipodes.  There  has  come  a  situation 
in  the  world  in  which,  whether  we  want  to  or  do  not 
want  to,  whether  it  is  good  business  or  just  ordinary 
V  idealism,  we  are  obliged  to  take  "a,  planetary  view" 
of  the  human  race. 

And  so  we  come  to  the  question  of  what  is  going  to 
happen  to  the  ideals  of  America,  if  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace  is  successful  in  impressing  its  program. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  125 

Let  me  turn  that  round:  suppose  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  is  not  able  to  impress  its  program  here  in  America. 
When  this  war  is  over  in  Europe,  the  people  are  going 
to  demand  preventive  statesmanship.    The  possibiUty 
of  a  recurrence  of    this  nightmare  wiU  no  longer  be 
tolerated.     The  economic  forces,  the  industrial  forcesT) 
labor  and  reUgion,  and  learning  and  science  and  art,     ' 
already  in  an  intimate  and  intricate  system  of  exchange   v  x^ 
and  interchange  between  nations,  are  going  to  rise  as     ^ 
the  voice  of  the  people  in  favor  of  some  such  expression  (^j, 

of  the  popular  conscience  of  the  continent  of  Europe  as ,  \ 

is  desired  by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.    Now  sup-  \ 

pose  they  get  up  such  a  League.  Suppose  that  Europe 
asserts  itself  and  determines  to  have  that  sort  of  regu- 
lation of  international  relations,  and  we  are  not  in  it. 
What  then  will  be  the  relation  we  shall  bear  to  the  rest 
of  the  world?  Their  intimacy  together,  without  our 
partnership  in  it,  may  some  day  become  confusing  to 
us.  And  if  we,  now  in  the  dominant  moral  position  in 
the  world,  decline  to  join  hands  with  the  circle  that  is 
quite  certainly  destined  to  be  formed  by  the  nations 
of  the  world  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  they  will 
form  the  circle,  and  we  shall  be  on  the  outside  of  it. 

Clearly,  some  sacrifices  are  entailed.  As  civilization 
advances  some  of  us  see  that  what  once  seemed  a  neces- 
sary part  of  our  individualism  whether  among  men  as 
individuals  or  among  nations,  comes  to  the  sacrifice, 
that  the  advance  of  civilization  is  attained  by  the 
sacrifice  to  some  extent  of  individual  freedom  of  action 
for  the  common  good.  The  very  beginning  of  private 
law,  by  which  individuals  are  restrained  from  acts  of  v 
violence  and  aggression  on  one  another  and  the  peace  ^ 
of  society  preserved,  involves  a  surrender  of  some  part 
of  the  native  freedom  of  the  savage  or  the  frontiersman. 

And  so,  when  this  League  to  Enforce  Peace  comes,  it 
may  well  be  that  some  individualism  that  was  originally 
a  part  of  what  would  have  been  given  as  a  definition 


126  ENFORCED  PEACE 

of  American  ideals  may  have  to  be  surrendered  into  the 
keeping  of  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  trustees  of  the 
common  good.  But  out  of  it  there  will  have  arisen 
more  than  a  compensation  for  it,  a  better  understanding 
among  nations  and  peoples  of  the  earth,  an  understand- 
ing that  will  prevent  the  recurrence  of  what  we  now 
have. 

It  is  said  that  analogies,  however  argumentative,  are 
never  conclusive,  but  let  me  draw  your  attention  to 
another  thought.  The  order  we  have  in  society  now 
which  prevents  me  from  going  down  into  this  hall  and 
engaging  in  a  fight  with  some  other  man  of  my  size  and 
creating  a  disturbance  of  the  peace  and  comfort  of  this 
audience,  is  based  upon  this  thought:  It  is  intolerable 
that  the  business  or  the  reHgion  or  the  thought  of  any 
society  should  be  disturbed  by  any  mere  individual 
broils.  Philosophers  in  the  law  sometimes  say  that  it 
had  its  origin  in  the  thought,  when  every  fighting  mem- 
ber of  the  tribe  was  needed  to  resist  aggression,  that  the 
tribe  could  not  allow  its  members  to  be  fighting  one  an- 
other because  it  needed  its  full  strength  to  fight  some- 
body else.  And  I  think  that  may  have  been  a  part  of 
the  original  initiative  of  order  getting  itself  estabHshed 
into  law.  Almost  the  earliest  recognition  of  the  right  of 
society  to  enforce  peace  that  we  have  in  Anglo-Saxon 
society  is  where,  when  a  man  fought  and  slew  another, 
the  slayer  was  fined,  and  the  fine  divided,  one  half  going 
to  the  relatives  of  the  victim  and  the  other  half  to  the 
state,  whose  peace  had  been  offended  by  that  con- 
troversy. 

And  so,  in  our  public  indictments  now,  when  a  man 
fights  or  slays,  or  does  any  other  sort  of  crime,  it  is 
against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  state,  and  the  basis 
of  it  all  is  that,  adopting  the  maxim  of  Kant,  that  each 
man  must  act  upon  that  principle  which  is  fit  to  become 
universal  law,  and  applying  that  to  the  acts  of  individ- 
uals, we  have  the  principle  that  if  A  has  a  right  to  be 


ENFORCED  PEACE  127 

violent  all  individuals  have  an  equal  right  to  be  violent. 
Then  we  say,  as  a  necessary  conclusion,  that  society 
cannot  tolerate  individual  violence  which  will  interfere 
with  its  prosperity,  with  its  dearest  and  tenderest  re- 
lations, which  will  thwart  the  progress  of  its  soul 
toward  real  liberation. 

We  can  take  that  analogy  and  apply  it  to  the  nations. 
Now  that  the  peoples  of  the  earth  have  come  to  be  so'  / 
intimately  dependent  upon  one  another,  what  was  oncQ    ^^^ 
good  humanitarianism  has  become  necessary  businesS|  '^ 

consideration  and  we  are  able  to  apply  the  analogy  by^ 
saying  that  a  world  interrelated  as  ours  now  is,  with  o^ 
men  here  depending  on  men  there,  with  no  man  and; 
no  nation  able  to  stand  isolated  and  alone,  it  has  become 
intolerable  to  the  human  race  to  have  a  condition  in 
which  unprovoked  and  aggressive  warfare  can  be' 
brought  about  by  the  action  of  individuals  and  nationsj 

Now,  I  have  only  one  other  thought  to  add  to  this, 
and  that  is:  Why  should  America  be  specially  con- 
cerned in  this  business?  For  one  great  reason.  As 
things  now  seem,  we  have  less  to  gain  and  more  to  give 
than  any  other  nation  in  the  world.  It  is  because,  as  I 
see  it,  America's  ideals,  or  its  ideal,  is  to  be  the  leader 
of  the  human  race  in  giving — in  giving  to  mankind  a 
new  lease  on  hfe,  new  codes  of  Uberty,  new  opportuni- 
ties for  justice.  It  is  because  I  believe  that  to  be  the 
ideal  of  America  that  I  think  the  purpose  of  this 
League  and  its  invitation  to  the  rest  of  the  nations  of 
the  earth  is  perfectly  consistent  with  and  in  fulfilment 
of  our  ideals. 


CHAPTER  V 

PLANS  FOR  GIVING  EFFECT  TO  THE 
LEAGUE  PROGRAM 

The  discussion  of  plans  for  giving  effect  to  the 
program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  was  led 
by  Theodore  Marburg,  A.M.,  LL.D.,  publicist 
and  former  minister  to  Belgium,  with  the  following 
paper: 

THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE:  A  REPLY  TO  CRITICS 

In  a  small  flower  shop  in  the  humbler  quarters  of  a 
Southern  city  a  young  hospital  nurse,  still  in  training,  is 
asking  the  price  of  roses,  her  rounded  cheek,  itself  a  rose, 
half  turned  to  the  open  door.  The  daily  tasks  of  the 
hospital  training  school  are  exhausting.  But  she  has 
managed  to  embroider  a  workbag — a  wedding  present 
wrought  by  her  own  hands — and  she  seeks  to  adorn  the 
package  with  a  few  buds.  Embroideries  and  carved 
wood,  chiseled  marble  and  wrought  metal,  music  and 
the  painter's  art  and  letters,  she  is  aware,  give  life  a  rich 
setting.  To  the  question  she  puts  there  is  no  reply, 
only  a  thoughtful  look.  Such  a  voice  as  is  "an  ex- 
cellent thing  in  woman  "  repeats  it.  Then  the  woman  of 
the  shop,  quietly: 

"I  heard  you  the  first  time,  dear,  and  I've  heard  your 
voice  before.  You  were  good,  so  good,  to  my  Alice  at 
the  hospital.  How  badly  she  was  burned  by  the  over- 
turned lamp!     And  how  patient  to  the  end!" 

Then,  turning  to  her  boy,  she  bids  him  give  the  lady 
128 


THEODORE  MARBURG,  A.M.,  LL.B. 

Vice  Chairman  of  the  Exec-uti  ve  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  129 

all  the  flowers  she  may  need.  And  she  herself  pins  a 
white  rose  on  the  young  nurse's  bosom. 

Now,  the  qualities  disclosed  in  this  simple  incident 
are  not  mere  ornaments  of  men.  They  constitute  the 
very  basis  and  condition  of  all  progress.  The  philosophy 
of  ruthless  suppression  and  domination  is  based  on  the 
biological  principle  of  the  advantage  to  the  individual 
of  fierceness  and  cunning  in  the  struggle  for  existence. 
But  this  philosophy  overlooks  a  conflicting  and  more 
far-reaching  biological  principle,  namely,  the  superior 
advantage  of  group  action  conditioned  on  altruism. 
The  buck  standing  on  guard  while  the  herd  feeds,  the 
wild  goat  coming  back  to  the  top  of  the  pass  to  see 
whether  there  be  a  wolf  or  other  enemy  following  before 
he  moves  on  with  the  herd !  What  have  we  here  but  the 
beginnings  of  altruism?  It  is  altruism  which  alone 
makes  group  action  or  cooperation  possible,  and  co- 
operation has  played  a  greater  part  in  higher  evolution 
than  the  individual  qualities  of  fierceness  and  cunning. 
The  dictates  of  humanity — ^kindness,  consideration,  and 
pity — are  therefore  equally  grounded  in  philosophy. 
They  are  the  very  foundations  of  society,  which  began  in 
the  animal  world  before  man  and  without  which  human 
progress  would  have  been  utterly  impossible. 

To  apply  the  principle  of  cooperation  based  on 
altruism  to  the  society  of  nations,  as  it  has  already  been 
applied  within  the  state,  is  the  aim  and  purpose  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace.  Its  platform  lacks  details 
and  elaboration;  it  does  not  lack  definition,  nor  has 
there  been  lack  of  study  and  public  discussion  of  its 
possible  workings.  We  have  to  overcome  the  initial 
difficulty  of  getting  the  powers  to  agree  to  any  plan. 
Therefore  the  simplicity  of  this  one.  It  is  felt  that 
if  the  nations  can  be  induced  to  subscribe  to  its  funda- 
mental principles  the  envoys  charged  with  the  duty  of 
perfecting  the  plan  will  be  equal  to  all  questions  of 
detail,  program,  or  organization.    The  plan  contem- 


I30  ENFORCED  PEACE 

plates  "not  a  league  of  some  states  against  others, 
but  a  union  of  as  many  as  possible  in  their  common 
interest." 

The  central  idea  of  the  League  is  that  wars  are  the 
result  of  the  condition  of  international  anarchy  out  of 
which  the  world  has  never  yet  risen;  that  they  will  not 
cease  until  justice  prevails  and  that  justice  cannot 
triumph  until  the  world  organizes  for  justice. 

We  find  within  the  modern  state  certain  institutions 
such  as  legislature,  courts,  and  executive,  which  aim 
to  prevent  strife  among  men  and  to  promote  the  general 
welfare  by  promoting  legal  and  social  justice  and  by 
enlarging  opportunity.  This  system  was  apphed  to 
the  states,  originally  sovereign  entities,  composing 
the  American  Union.  Entering  the  Union  involved  a 
certain  surrender  of  sovereignty  and  independence 
and  a  sacrifice  of  the  principle  of  equahty  in  the  un- 
equal representation  in  the  lower  house  of  the  Federal 
Legislature.  The  interests  of  the  states,  economic  and 
other,  had  often  clashed  and  resort  to  arms  between 
them  had  not  been  unknown.  Because  of  this  fact 
some  of  them  were  slow  to  consent  to  the  plan. 

But  the  workings  of  the  Continental  Government, 
crude  as  it  was,  convinced  men  that  in  this  direction 
lay  progress,  in  this  direction  light  for  the  world;  and, 
though  with  hesitation  and  misgivings  on  the  part  of 
some,  all  finally  took  the  step.  Once  only  in  a  century 
and  a  quarter  has  the  peace  between  them  been  dis- 
turbed. True,  the  South  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
institution  of  slavery,  and  lack  of  protective  duties 
against  the  cheaper  agricultural  products  of  the  West 
caused  farms  to  be  abandoned  in  New  York  and  New 
England.  But  individuals  moved  freely  from  one 
section  to  another.  There  was  no  suppression  of  local 
aspirations  and  ideals.  On  the  whole,  the  welfare  of 
each  made  for  the  welfare  of  all.  To-day  the  benefits 
of  the  Union  are  unquestioned. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  131 

We  naturally  ask  ourselves  why  the  same  organiza- 
tion which  brings  justice  and  peace  and  orderly  progress 
within  the  nation  may  not  be  applied  with  equal  suc- 
cess between  the  nations.  Far  from  representing  a 
confusion  of  ideas,  it  is  the  essence  of  logic.  The  ques- 
tion is:  how  far  can  we  attempt  to  go  in  the  direction 
of  such  organization  at  present?  On  this  question 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  occupies  a  middle  ground. 
Because  of  this  fact  it  faces  criticism  by  two  opposing 
groups.  One  maintains  that  we  go  too  far,  the  other 
that  we  do  not  go  far  enough. 

Men  who  previous  to  the  present  war  were  opposed 
to  the  introduction  of  the  element  of  force  in  inter- 
national institutions  have  now  come  to  regard  it  as 
essential. 

The  principal  declared  purpose  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  is  to  make  immediate  and  certain  war 
upon  any  nation  which  goes  to  war  without  a  previous 
hearing  of  the  dispute.  A  Council  of  ConciUation 
will  entertain  disputes  arising  out  of  a  clash  of  political 
interests.  Incidentally  a  true  international  court  of 
justice  is  to  be  set  up  to  entertain  justiciable  questions, 
and  there  are  to  be  conferences  from  time  to  time  to 
formulate  and  codify  international  law.  In  the  mea- 
sure in  which  nations  are  estopped  from  fighting,  the 
growth  of  law  will  be  stimulated  and  resort  to  inter- 
national tribunals  become  more  frequent.  These  latter 
happy  results  in  their  turn  will  diminish  resort  to 
arms. 

But  it  is  manifestly  not  justiciable  questions,  nor 
even  the  nebulous  state  of  international  law,  which, 
by  and  large,  brings  war.  War  arises  principally  out 
of  conflicts  of  pohcy.  To  deal  with  these  successfully 
is  the  immediate  problem  before  the  world.  The 
demand  for  a  hearing  of  the  dispute  once  complied 
with,  nations,  members  of  the  League,  are  then  free 
to  go  to  war  as  under  present  conditions.    That  is  to 


132  ENFORCED  PEACE 

say,  the  League  as  such  stops  short  of  enforcing  the 
judgment  or  award.  In  fact,  it  is  a  question  whether 
the  Council  of  Concihation,  unless  requested  to  do  so, 
will  proceed  to  an  award  at  all,  though  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  nations  submitting  a  dispute  to  any 
tribunal  may,  and  often  will,  enter  into  an  agreement 
beforehand  to  respect  the  decision. 

The  failure  to  enforce  the  judgment  or  award  is  a 
source  of  objection  to  the  League's  program  on  the 
part  of  men  whose  opinion  is  entitled  to  respect,  among 
them  Charles  W.  Eliot.  Their  criticism  is  that,  unless 
the  verdict  be  enforced,  many  wars  will  still  take 
place,  and  that  if  a  nation  may  be  called  upon  to  de- 
fend its  position  by  force  of  arms  after  a  hearing,  arma- 
ments must  be  maintained.  Both  of  these  criticisms 
the  League  admits  to  be  valid.  The  check  upon  war 
would  be  much  more  effective  if  the  nations  could  be 
persuaded  to  accept  a  plan  providing  not  only  for 
compulsory  investigation,  but  for  an  award,  and  finally 
for  a  sanction  which  would  insure  the  execution  of  the 
award.  But  the  desirable  is  not  always  the  reaUzable. 
It  is  felt  that  although  in  the  interest  of  world  peace 
they  ought  to  be  willing  to  give  and  take,  as  a  matter 
of  fact  the  great  Powers  would  not  enter  into  an  agree- 
ment to  submit  all  disputes  to  a  tribunal  if  they  were 
bound  to  carry  out  the  award.  Great  Britain,  for  ex- 
ample, might  have  the  question  of  Gibralter  or  Egypt, 
or  a  sphere  of  influence,  brought  up;  Japan,  the  ques- 
tion of  Korea  or  her  activities  in  China;  the  United 
States,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  the  question  of  oriental 
immigration.  To  be  something  which  governments 
at  the  present  stage  of  world  feeling  and  enlightenment 
are  likely  to  adopt  the  plan  must,  therefore,  omit  the 
feature  of  executing  the  award. 

Under  existing  practices,  when  two  nations  enter 
an  arbitration  they  do  so  voluntarily.  The  nature 
of  the  question  to  be  decided  is  defined  in  the  pre- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  133 

liminaiy  agreement  and  they  know  beforehand  the 
worst  that  can  befall  them.  When  at  present,  there- 
fore, they  consent  to  arbitrate  a  question  they  do  it 
in  the  full  expectation  of  abiding  by  the  result.  To  go 
further  and  enter  into  general  treaties  in  pairs  looking 
to  the  settlement  of  future  disputes  is  still  a  very  dif- 
ferent matter  from  entering  into  a  common  treaty  with 
a  large  group  of  nations.  In  the  former  case  each 
nation  knows  pretty  well  the  antecedents,  pohcy,  and 
interests  of  the  contracting  party.  In  the  latter,  that 
fact  is  much  more  comphcated.  The  United  States, 
for  example,  would  be  willing  to  go  much  farther  in  a 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  than  in  a  treaty  with  the 
Balkan  States  or  Turkey.  There  still  remain  in  the 
plan  two  steps  which  constitute  an  advance  over  exist- 
ing practice,  namely,  (a)  the  obligation  of  the  signatories 
binding  themselves  to  use  the  tribunals  they  may  set 
up;  (b)  the  use  of  force  to  compel  them  to  do  so,  if 
recalcitrant. 

Now  why  do  we  base  such  high  hopes  on  a  mere 
hearing?  Because  experience,  municipal  and  inter- 
national, points  to  its  great  value  in  warding  off  actual 
strife.  In  the  state  of  Massachusetts  a  provision  for 
compulsory  investigation  of  labor  disputes  in  the  quasi- 
public  services  has  long  existed.  The  power  to  sum- 
mon witnesses  and  lay  bare  the  facts  of  the  dispute, 
without  proceeding  to  a  judgment,  has  prevented  labor 
war  in  these  services.  In  Canada  we  witness  the 
successful  working  of  the  Dominion  law  covering 
similar  disputes  and  properly  extended  to  coal  mining, 
the  stoppage  of  which  vitally  touches  the  public  inter- 
est. In  the  international  field  there  is  the  Dogger 
Bank  affair,  referred  successfully  to  the  International 
Commission  of  Inquiry  set  up  by  the  First  Hague  Con- 
ference. 

Such  a  league  as  is  proposed  would  necessarily  have 
an  executive  council  or   directorate,   sitting   at   the 


134  ENFORCED  PEACE 

capital  of  some  small  country,  and  charged,  among 
other  duties,  with  one  certain  duty  of  overwhelming 
importance;  namely,  that  of  declaring  war  in  the  name 
of  the  League  on  any  nation  which  went  to  war  with- 
out a  preliminary  hearing  of  the  dispute  or  an  earnest 
attempt  to  secure  one.  This  is  the  one  sole  cause  for 
war  by  the  League. 

War  on  land  cannot  well  be  made  without  invading 
the  territory  of  the  enemy.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  war  France  retired 
her  forces  a  certain  number  of  kilometres  within  her 
own  borders.  If  some  such  rule  as  this  were  set  up, 
the  locus  of  the  first  battle,  a  geographical  fact,  could 
be  easily  determined,  and  there  would  remain  no  doubt 
who  the  offender  was.  No  provocation,  whether  by 
threat,  either  of  word  or  of  preparation,  nor  even  an 
alleged  act  of  injustice,  would  be  accepted  as  an  excuse. 
There  would  be  no  conference  of  the  Powers  to  deHber- 
ate  as  to  what  action,  if  any,  should  be  taken,  to  raise 
in  the  breast  of  the  would-be  aggressor  the  hope  that 
dissension  among  the  Powers  might  lead  to  the  cus- 
tomary inaction.  The  Executive  Council  would  be 
in  being,  charged  with  one  supreme  and  certain  duty: 
to  make  war  upon  the  offender.  That  duty  to  declare 
war  in  the  name  of  the  League  is  a  heavy  responsibihty, 
and  therefore  the  fact  on  which  the  Executive  Council 
is  asked  to  act  should  be  an  easily  ascertainable  fact. 
Warlike  preparation  is  not  an  easily  ascertainable 
fact,  nor  is  that  of  unjust  acts.  Both  are  facts  most 
difficult  to  ascertain,  and  therefore  are  to  be  neither  a 
ground  for  the  declaration  of  war  by  the  League  nor  an 
excuse  for  war  by  the  nation  offending  against  the 
provisions  of  the  League. 

The  constitutional  power  of  the  United  States  to 
enter  into  such  a  compact  already  exists.  Mr.  Taft 
has  pointed  to  its  exercise  in  connection  with  the 
treaties  guaranteeing  the  integrity  of  Cuba  and  Panama. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  135 

They  carry  the  obligation  to  use  force  if  necessary. 
When  the  contingency  contemplated  by  the  treaties 
arises,  Congress,  which  alone  has  the  power  to  declare 
war,  would  be  called  upon  to  fulfill  the  treaty  obliga- 
tions. The  country  was  justified  in  taking  this  risk 
because  the  treaties  make  for  the  security  of  Cuba  and 
Panama  and  so  for  peace. 

Our  critics,  pointing  out  that  conciHation  is  a  volun- 
tary process,  assert  that  to  force  conciliation  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.  They  set  up  their  own  straw  man 
and  then  proceed  to  knock  him  down  .  The  League 
does  not  force  conciUation.  It  simply  forces  a  hearing, 
leaving  the  parties  free  to  accept  or  reject  the  finding. 
Under  the  League,  nations  are  prevented  from  going  to 
war  to  get  what  they  suppose  to  be  their  rights  until,  by 
means  of  a  hearing,  not  only  the  outside  world  but 
— that  which  is  of  high  importance — their  own  people 
have  the  facts  of  the  dispute  spread  before  them.  They 
are  not  prevented  from  indulging  in  that  costly  pastime 
if,  after  a  hearing,  they  still  hold  to  the  opinion  that 
they  are  being  wronged. 

Meantime,  pending  the  hearing,  each  disputant  is 
enjoined  by  the  League,  under  penalty  of  war,  from  con- 
tinuing the  objectionable  practice  or  proceeding  with 
the  objectionable  project. 

The  judicial  tribunal  which  the  League  aims  to 
create  will  be  a  true  World  Court  with  permanent 
judges,  and  the  assembly  an  embryo  world  parliament  to 
meet  periodically.  The  Court,  while  set  up  by  the 
League,  wiU  be  open  to  any  nation  electing  to  use  it. 
And  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Parliament,  though  con- 
vened and  prorogued  by  the  League,  may  not  be  com- 
posed of  representatives  of  all  nations,  a  true 
development  of  the  Hague  Conferences  and  the 
InterparUamentary  Union.  If,  now,  the  League  should 
fail  of  its  main  object  and  melt  away,  these  institutions 
should  remain ,  a  valuable  legacy  to  the  world.     Far  from 


136  ENFORCED  PEACE 

running  counter  to  the  promising  current  of  arbitration^ 
the  project  therefore  is  moving  with  it. 

By  far  the  weightiest  argument  against  the  League  is 
the  entangling  alhance  argument.  Of  this  it  should  be 
said  that  when  avoidance  of  such  alliances  was  enjoined 
by  Washington  we  were  a  small  country  highly  vulner- 
able because  of  our  comparative  weakness.  Who  shall 
say  the  same  of  us  to-day?  A  people  of  one  hundred 
milHons,  with  untold  wealth,  so  placed  geographically 
as  to  be  practically  unconquerable  by  any  single  power  or 
likely  combination  of  powers!  The  dominant  trait  in 
Washington  was  his  sense  of  duty.  Were  he  aUve  to- 
day would  he  not  recognize  the  obligation  of  his  country 
to  fulfill  a  duty  to  the  society  of  nations  instead  of  tak- 
ing advantage  of  its  fortunate  geographical  position  to 
shirk  that  duty?  He  saw  what  cooperation  meant  for 
the  Colonies.  Would  his  vision  be  less  clear  in  sensing 
the  great  need  of  our  day,  the  overwhelming  importance 
of  international  organization  to  take  the  place  of  inter- 
national anarchy?  America  may  on  the  surface  ap- 
pear a  selfish  nation  but  she  has  been  stirred  to  her  depth 
by  ethical  movements  in  the  past  and  may  be  counted 
upon  to  rouse  herself  in  similar  fashion  again.  An  ap- 
peal in  a  high  cause  involving  sacrifice,  even  hard- 
ship and  suffering,  would  go  farther  to-day  than 
is  dreamed  of  by  the  high  priests  of  gain  and  ease  and 
security.  Thousands  of  Americans  who  have  not  shut 
their  eyes  and  ears  to  the  sights  and  sounds  of  this  awful 
day  are  ready  for  some  attempt  to  destroy  the  monster, 
war,  and  ready  to  have  their  country  play  its  part  as  the 
mother  of  men. 

A  people  wedded  to  justice  will  not  be  afraid  to  as- 
sume its  share  of  responsibility  in  a  league  of  nations  in 
order  to  lighten  the  curse  of  war  in  the  world  even  though 
it  involves  risks.  For  the  principal  objection  to  war  is 
that  it  is  such  a  wholesale  source  of  injustice,  public  and 
private. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  137 

We  teach  our  children  not  to  mind  so  much  what  is 
•done  to  them,  but  to  mind  very  much  what  is  done  to 
others;  to  be  slow  to  resent  little  offenses  and  sHghts, 
and  even  injuries  they  themselves  suffer;  but  to  be  ready 
at  all  times  to  act  when  some  one  else  is  being  persecuted 
or  injured.  We  teach  them,  too,  that  the  only  fear  any 
one  should  have  is  the  fear  of  doing  wrong.  Has  not 
the  day  arrived  when  these  should  likewise  be  sub- 
stantially the  standards  of  conduct  for  nations?  I  say 
"substantially"  because  the  standards  of  private  con- 
duct are  modified  for  nations  by  the  fact  that  the  nation 
is  a  trustee  of  the  interests  of  its  people  and  of  its  special 
form  of  civilization,  including  the  political  principles 
which  it  represents. 

In  most  civilized  countries,  the  day  is  past  when  a 
principal  obligation  of  the  individual  is  to  insist  on  his 
rights.  It  is  the  side  of  duty,  rather  than  rights,  which 
is  emphasized  to-day;  and  the  new  order  of  international 
society  toward  which  the  nations  are  moving  will  do  the 
same. 

I  fell  strongly  that  the  present  evil  of  recurring  war  is 
due  largely  to  the  selfish  motives  which  have  dominated 
the  policies  of  all  nations  in  the  past.  The  United 
States  probably  has  been  governed  by  them  less  than 
other  countries  but  even  its  attitude  leaves  much  to  be 
desired.  A  better  day  cannot  dawn  until  it  is  realized 
that  in  general  the  future  interests  of  a  nation  will  he 
found  to  lie  in  the  direction  of  a  present  duty  to  the  society 
of  nations.  The  fact  that  Europe  permitted  the  crime 
of  1870  made  possible  the  crime  of  1914.  The  tragedy 
we  are  now  witnessing  holds  within  it  the  seeds  of  un- 
told future  disaster  for  all  of  us.  And  unless  the  neutral 
world  realizes  the  significance  of  it,  unless  it  acts  now 
as  if  the  society  of  nations  were  already  in  existence  and 
assumes  its  full  share  of  responsibility  for  the  triumph 
of  the  right,  the  seed  will  bring  its  harvest. 

Has  not  the  time  come  when  this  great  country  should 


138  ENFORCED  PEACE 

stand  for  the  right,  should  strike  for  the  right  when 
necessary,  and  should  help  organize  the  world  for  right? 
And  how  much  less  frequent  the  need  of  striking  at  all 
when  such  absolute  and  potential  power  as  a  league  of  all 
the  great  nations  will  represent  shall  be  back  of  the 
right! 

Until  we  have  such  organization  no  country  can  be 
really  free.  Plato  has  defined  the  free  man  as  he  who 
has  sufficient  control  over  his  appetites  to  be  governed 
by  reason  in  choosing  between  good  and  evil.  What 
nation  to-day  is  free  to  choose  between  good  and  evil? 
How  few  the  nations  that  would  not  lay  down  the 
burden  of  armaments  if  they  felt  themselves  free  to  do 
so!  Within  the  state  true  Uberty  is  secured  only  by  a 
surrender  of  license;  that  is,  by  self-denial  and  by  a 
measure  of  restraint  imposed  upon  each  by  all.  Society 
implies  restraint:  self-restraint  and  restraint  from 
without.  In  the  society  of  nations  there  can  be  no  true 
liberty  without  surrender,  in  some  measure,  of  sover- 
eignty and  independence.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  help  in  organizing  the  world  for  justice  be- 
cause it  is  only  through  justice  that  peace  can  be  secured. 
A  selfish  policy  which  leaves  a  government  apathetic  to 
a  universal  woe  and  causes  it  to  act  only  when  its  own 
rights  are  trespassed  upon  cannot  produce  peace.  There 
must  be  cooperation  with  other  nations  in  the  cause  of 
justice. 

Thus  much  for  sacrifice  if  sacrifice  be  called  for. 

But,  while  ready  for  it  if  need  be,  we  carmot  admit 
that  the  plan  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  would 
actually  involve  the  United  States  in  wars.  The 
League  would  not  be  instituted  unless  it  embraced  all  or 
nearly  all  of  the  great  nations.  Its  miUtary  power  would 
thus  be  overwhelmingly  preponderant.  Now,  what  is 
the  dominant  demand  of  the  League?  A  hearing  of  the 
dispute  before  going  to  war!  Could  any  demand  be 
more  reasonable,  more  just?     We  are  charged  with 


ENFORCED  PEACE  139 

planning  an  oligarchy  implying  oppression.  If  we 
sought  to  enforce  the  award  of  a  tribunal  in  disputes  in- 
volving conflicts  of  poHtical  policy  there  would  really  be 
danger  of  oppression.  To  avoid  this  we  should  then 
demand  that  the  League  embrace  not  only  all  or  nearly 
all  the  great  nations  but  the  smaller  progressive  nations 
as  well,  so  that  out  of  their  united  action  substantial 
justice  might  emerge.  But  what  injustice,  what  oppres- 
sion, can  arise  from  a  demand  for  a  hearing  which  leaves 
the  disputant  free  to  go  to  war  afterward?  And  is  there 
any  nation,  however  powerful,  which  would  refuse  this 
reasonable  demand  if  faced,  as  it  would  be,  with  the 
alternative  of  having  to  wage  war  against  practically  the 
civilized  world? 

The  French  Ambassador  at  Rome  reports  San 
Giuliano's  view,  July  27,  1914:  "Germany  at  this  mo- 
ment attaches  great  importance  to  her  relations  with 
London  and  he  believes  that  if  any  power  can  determine 
Berlin  in  favor  of  peaceful  action  it  is  England."  Two 
days  earher,  July  25,  Sazonof  had  asked  that  England 
place  herself  clearly  on  the  side  of  Russia  and  France. 
Such  an  act  on  the  part  of  the  British  Cabinet  was  not 
possible,  until  Belgium  was  invaded,  because  it  was 
doubtful  whether  the  people  of  the  British  Isles  would 
support  the  government  in  a  hostile  attitude  toward  the 
Central  Powers.  But  the  opinion  is  general  to-day  that 
if  Germany  had  known  with  certainty  that  England 
would  line  up  against  her,  she  would  not  have  declared 
war.  Under  the  plan  of  the  League  Germany  would 
have  known  that  she  would  have  not  only  England  to 
reckon  with  but  Italy  and  the  United  States  and  the 
"ABC"  countries  of  South  America,  not  to  mention 
minor  members  of  the  League.  Now  is  it  reasonable  to 
suppose  that,  facing  such  a  possibility,  she  would  have 
denied  Sir  Edward  Grey's  demand  for  a  conference  over 
the  dispute? 

The  only  loss  a  nation  could  suffer  by  a  hearing  would 


I40  ENFORCED  PEACE 

be  that  of  being  deprived  of  the  advantage  of  superior 
preparedness.  And  is  not  that  one  of  the  very  ad- 
vantages we  want  to  take  away  from  nations  in  the 
general  interest?  Nations  bent  on  aggression  would 
go  through  the  form  of  a  hearing  and  proceed  with  their 
designs  afterward.  There  would,  therefore,  still  be 
wars.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  League  as  such 
would  ever  be  called  upon  to  wage  war  under  the  terms 
of  the  compact.  It  is  possible  that  after  a  hearing  the 
nations  may  still  regard  a  threatened  war  as  so  unjust  or 
so  dangerous  to  the  world  at  large  that  they  wiU  come  to- 
gether anyway  and  say:  ''This  may  not  be."  But 
that  they  may  do  now. 

Objection  is  made  that  the  League  plan  calls  for  co- 
operation with  monarchies.  In  many  constitutional 
monarchies  such  as  those  of  Italy,  Holland,  the  Scandi- 
navian countries,  etc.,  the  people  practically  enjoy  self- 
government.  France  and  Switzerland  are  republics 
and  England  is  a  true  democracy  despite  its  monarchical 
form  of  government.  Drawing  our  love  of  liberty 
originally  from  England,  we  have  paid  back  the  debt. 
The  example  of  the  successful  practice  of  a  broad 
democracy  here  encouraged  its  growth  not  only  in  the 
mother  country,  but  generally  throughout  the  world. 
Social  democracy,  which  is  opportunity  to  rise  in  life 
and  is  largely  the  result  of  economic  conditions,  is 
greater  in  all  new  countries  than  in  the  countries  of  the 
old  world.  It  is  greater  in  Canada,  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  and  the  United  States  than  in  England.  But 
when  we  come  to  political  democracy,  which  is  the  op- 
portunity for  the  will  of  the  people  to  express  itself  in 
law,  there  is  more  of  that  in  England  than  in  the  United 
States.  If  one  knows  what  the  wiU  of  the  English 
people  is  he  can  pretty  well  gauge  the  action  of  the 
English  Parliament.  Is  the  same  true  here?  Old  age 
and  disability  pensions  every  justice-loving  man  of  the 
United  States  would  like  to  see  estabhshed  here.     Have 


ENFORCED  PEACE  141 

we  got  them?  And  if  it  be  the  fault  of  Federal  or  State 
constitutions  does  this  alter  the  fact? 

The  question  has  been  asked:  can  the  United  States 
afiford  to  become  party  to  a  treaty  which  would  justify  a 
league  of  nations  under  certain  conditions  in  using  force 
against  it? 

George  Grafton  Wilson  has  pointed  out  that  the 
Bryan  treaties,  providing  for  obligatory  inquiry,  bind 
the  United  States  now  to  a  course  of  action  exactly  like 
that  laid  down  in  the  second  article  of  the  platform  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  It  will  be  recalled  that 
these  treaties,  of  which  there  are  many,  call  for  the  sub- 
mission of  all  disputes  whatsoever,  not  resolvable  by 
diplomacy,  to  an  international  commission  for  investi- 
gation and  report,  and  forbid  the  disputants  from  de- 
claring war  or  beginning  hostiUties  "during  such  in- 
vestigation or  until  the  report  is  submitted"  provided 
that  the  report  shall  be  presented  in  the  maximum 
period  of  one  year,  which  period  may,  however,  be 
shortened  or  extended  by  agreement.  The  League 
extends  the  application  of  this  principle  to  a  wide  group 
of  nations.  But  it  does  not  stop  there.  It  goes  farther 
and  declares  that  it  will  make  war  upon  any  nation  which 
breaks  the  treaty.  That  is  to  say,  it  makes  provision 
for  compulsory  inquiry  instead  of  obligatory  inquiry. 

Now  in  exactly  what  way  are  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  affected  by  this  further  step?  The 
Bryan  treaties,  now  in  force,  cover  disputes  "of  every 
nature  whatsoever."  So  does  the  League  compact. 
Both,  therefore,  cover  matters  of  vital  interest.  But 
both  simply  call  for  investigation  and  report,  not  for 
enforcing  an  award.  If  the  award  of  the  tribunal  is 
not  to  be  enforced  how  can  the  legitimate  interests  of 
our  own  or  any  other  country  be  jeopardized  by  such 
treaties?  Surely  we  can  afford  to  submit  questions 
involving  even  the  Monroe  Doctrine  for  investigation 
before  we  go  to  war  over  them.    And  this  is  all  the 


142  ENFORCED  PEACE 

League  demands.  No  nation  will  be  forced  to  settle 
disputes.  They  may  continue  them  indefinitely  if 
they  choose,  just  as  we  continued  the  fisheries  dispute 
with  Great  Britain  for  three  quarters  of  a  century. 
The  only  thing  they  may  not  do  is  to  go  to  war  over  a 
dispute  before  it  has  been  submitted  for  investigation 
and  report.  In  other  words,  unless  the  United  States 
should,  under  the  League,  do  what  it  has  already 
obligated  itself  under  the  Bryan  treaties  not  to  do,  the 
League  would  never  have  occasion  to  use  force  against 
it.  A  nation  which  cannot  submit  any  question  under 
the  sun  for  a  hearing  before  going  to  war  over  it  has 
a  poor  case  indeed. 

Coupled  with  this  consent  to  a  hearing,  which 
necessarily  involves  delay,  there  must  be  some  pro- 
vision for  preventing  nations  from  proceeding,  under 
penalty  of  war,  with  an  objectionable  act  pending  the 
hearing.  For  the  solution  of  this  problem  we  turn 
to  the  power  of  injunction  which  under  municipal 
law  is  lodged  in  the  courts.  The  League  would  un- 
doubtedly exercise  a  similar  power.  In  other  words, 
the  United  States  would  not  be  estopped  from  main- 
taining the  Monroe  Doctrine  after  a  hearing  of  the 
dispute,  and  it  would  be  protected  against  violations 
of  it  pending  the  hearing  by  the  power  of  injunction 
lodged  in  the  Executive  Council  of  the  League  or  in 
one  of  its  tribunals. 

What  we  desire  is  that  the  Powers  should  commit 
themselves  now  to  the  principle  of  obligatory  inquiry 
and  a  league  of  nations  to  enforce  it  and  pledge  them- 
selves to  set  up  such  an  institution  after  the  war. 

We  have  the  whole-hearted  endorsement  of  the 
principle  by  President  Wilson,  by  Senator  Root,  by  the 
Secretary  of  War,  Newton  D.  Baker,  and  by  a  host  of 
eminent  Americans.  If  now  we  can  add  to  this  sup- 
port of  private  individuals  and  oJ05cials,  a  resolution 
of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  favoring  the 


PHILIP  H.  GADSDEN 

Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  143 

principle,  we  could  then  ask  Mr.  Taft  to  go  abroad  as 
the  representative  of  this  unofficial  body  and  endeavor 
to  secure  the  adherence  of  foreign  Powers.  You  will 
recall  the  fact  that  the  Congress  of  Vienna  did  only  so 
much  as  it  was  obligated  to  do  by  the  preUminary 
Treaty  of  Paris.  And,  unless  we  get  the  Powers  com- 
mitted now,  there  is  grave  danger  that  when  the  war  is 
over  we  will  find  it  difficult  to  get  a  hearing.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  they  do  so  commit  themselves  now,  the 
various  governments  can  proceed  at  once  to  a  study  of 
the  project,  and  the  envoys  who  meet  to  frame  a  treaty 
of  peace  will  come  not  only  with  a  matured  plan,  but 
with  positive  instructions  to  reach  an  agreement  if 
possible. 

Philip  H.  Gadsden,  president  of  the  Charleston, 
S.  C,  ConsoHdated  Railway  and  Lighting  Com- 
pany, delivered  the  following  address: 

PERFECTING   THE   ORGANIZATION 

In  all  of  the  great  crises  through  which  the  world 
has  come,  when  men  were  confronted  with  the  appar- 
ent destruction  of  all  which,  up  to  that  time,  had 
been  held  most  dear,  when  in  despair  they  wondered 
if  civilization  itself  were  not  at  stake,  history  shows 
that  in  every  such  instance,  out  of  the  stress  and  strain, 
sorrow  and  anguish  of  the  moment,  there  was  gradually 
evolved  in  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men  in  diflferent 
parts  of  the  world,  first,  a  vague  thought  or  suggestion 
which  gradually  grew  until  it  assumed  the  form  of  a 
definite  proposition,  as  an  answer  to  the  voice  of 
humanity  and  as  a  solution  to  the  problems  then  con- 
fronting the  human  race. 

The  next  step  in  the  process,  we  find,  has  been  that 
this  vague  and  undefined  thought  or  aspiration  has 
been  formulated  into  definite  shape  and  submitted 


144  ENFORCED  PEACE 

to  the  judgment  of  the  world  for  its  criticism  and 
analysis.  If  it  came  out  of  this  crucible  of  public 
opinion,  it  definitely  estabhshed  itself  as  a  principle 
of  action,  as  a  guide  for  the  conduct  of  men,  and  from 
that  point  on  its  influence  upon  the  human  race  was 
dependent  upon  the  effectiveness  of  the  organization 
which  could  be  created  to  support  it.  All  great  move- 
ments which  have  left  their  mark  upon  the  history  of 
the  world  and  have  become  the  guiding  principle  of 
human  conduct  have  had  their  origin  under  similar  con- 
ditions; have  gone  through  the  same  orderly  develop- 
ment, and  their  effectiveness  and  general  acceptance 
throughout  the  world  has  been,  in  every  instance,  de- 
pendent upon  the  effectiveness  and  force  of  the  organi- 
zation which  could  be  built  up  for  their  support. 

A  plan  of  organization  was  adopted  at  a  conference 
called  in  Philadelphia  in  June,  191 5,  which  it  is  my 
privilege  to  explain. 

The  object  of  the  League  was  expressed  to  be  to 
estabhsh  and  maintain  peace  after  the  close  of  the 
present  war,  not  to  end  the  European  conflict.  The 
organization  of  the  League  consists  of  a  President, 
fifty-one  or  more  National  Vice-Presidents,  a  National 
Chairman,  a  National  Secretary,  a  National  Treasurer, 
a  National  Executive  Committee  of  twenty-five  to  be 
elected  annually  by  the  General  Committee,  and  a 
General  Committee  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  to  be 
appointed  annually  by  the  Chairman  of  the  National 
Executive  Committee.  The  organization  was  further 
perfected  by  the  creation  of  the  following  National 
Committees: 

Finance  Committee. 

Committee  on  Foreign  Organization. 

Committee  on  Information. 

Committee  on  Home  Organization. 

Each  committee  to  consist  of  twenty-five  members. 
In  addition  there  was  created  a  National  Committee, 


ENFORCED  PEACE  145 

representing  directly  the  state  organizations  and 
composed  of  one  member  and  one  alternate  from 
each  state,  to  be  elected  annually  by  the  state  com- 
mittees of  such  states. 

The  next  step  in  perfecting  the  organization  of  the 
League  was  to  create  an  organization  in  every  state 
of  the  Union  and  upon  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  on  Home  Organization,  the  state  organi- 
zations consist  of  State  Chairman,  a  State  Secretary 
and  Treasurer,  with  the  necessary  assistants,  a  State 
Committee,  a  State  Executive  Committee,  and  stand- 
ing state  committees  on  Finance,  Information,  and 
State  Organization.  In  order  to  put  the  League  in 
still  closer  touch  with  the  people,  a  plan  of  county 
organization  has  been  adopted,  similar  in  every  respect 
to  the  state  organization.  The  conference  at  Phil- 
adelphia elected  an  Executive  Committee  of  twenty- 
five,  composed  of  men  representing  all  sections  of  this 
country,  who  have,  during  the  last  twelve  months, 
earnestly  and  enthusiastically  devoted  themselves  to 
the  work  of  creating  an  organization  which  would 
bring  home  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the  great 
principles  included  in  the  proposals  of  the  League.  A 
distinguished  list  of  honorary  vice-presidents  has  been 
elected,  of  men  and  women,  educators,  men  prominent 
in  public  life,  leaders  in  the  commercial  and  industrial 
life  of  the  nation,  both  men  and  women  representing 
on  one  hand  what  has  come  to  be  known  as  the  pacifist 
movement  and  others  who  have  been  and  are  now 
taking  active  part  in  arousing  pubHc  sentiment  in  this 
country  to  the  necessity  of  adequate  defense  of  its 
liberty  and  institutions.  Representing,  as  many  of 
them  do,  opposing  views  on  these  great  questions, 
they  have,  one  and  all,  enthusiastically  and  patriotically 
accepted  service  as  vice  presidents  of  this  organization, 
convinced  that  the  proposals  of  the  League  offer  a 
common  meeting  ground,  and  furnish  the  only  practical 


146  ENFORCED  PEACE 

plan  which  has  yet  been  suggested  for  accomplishing 
what  each  and  aU  are  striving  for,  the  orderly  peace  of 
the  world. 

What  we  need  at  this  time  is  to  perfect  the  organi- 
zation which  we  have  planned,  so  that  in  each  state, 
county,  and  city  of  the  United  States  there  shall  be 
state,  county,  and  mimicipal  committees  composed  of 
enthusiastic  men  and  women,  convinced  that  in  work- 
ing for  the  advancement  of  the  League,  they  are  en- 
gaged in  the  most  important  work  which  they  have 
ever  been  called  upon  to  perform.  To  do  this  work 
satisfactorily  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  become 
saturated  with  the  principles  for  which  we  stand  and 
especially  be  prepared  to  combat  the  arguments  ad- 
vanced against  it. 

Among  the  many  lessons  which  this  frightful  war 
has  taught  us,  is  the  realization  that  the  isolation 
of  this  country  from  European  questions  and  Euro- 
pean wars  and  strifes,  if  it  ever  really  existed,  has 
come  to  an  end.  The  chief  criticism  which  the  mem- 
bers of  the  League  are  called  upon  to  meet  is,  that  by 
becoming  a  member  of  a  league  of  nations,  such  as 
we  propose,  the  United  States  will  be  called  upon  to 
abandon  the  advice  of  Washington  against  entering 
into  entangling  alliances.  Based  upon  this  admonition 
of  Washington,  the  political  policies  of  this  country 
have  been  framed  upon  a  theory  that  the  United  States 
of  America  is  sufficient  unto  itself;  that  it  is  not  con- 
cerned in  the  interests  or  pohcies  of  other  nations; 
and  that  it  can  work  out  its  destiny  without  regard  to 
the  great  influences  working  throughout  the  civilized 
world. 

Even  in  the  days  of  Washington  these  proposals 
were  only  measurably  true.  There  never  has  been 
a  time,  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  history  of  the  world 
when  one  nation  could  justly  take  the  position  that 
the  problems  confronting  the  human  race  and  which 


ENFORCED  PEACE  147 

were  being  worked  out  in  sorrow  and  in  strife  by  other 
nations  were  no  concern  of  theirs.  The  extraordinary 
development  in  transportation  which  has  come  about 
within  comparatively  recent  years;  the  improvement 
which  has  been  produced  in  the  transmission  of  in- 
teUigence  throughout  the  world;  the  internationaliza- 
tion of  capital  and  economic  and  industrial  forces  and 
of  postal  facilities,  are  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact 
that  the  great  leaders  in  the  field  of  transportation 
and  transmission  of  inteUigence,  the  economists,  the 
postal  authorities,  the  masters  of  industry,  have  long 
since  come  to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that  no  one 
nation  was  sufiicient  unto  itself.  The  great  war  which 
has  destroyed  so  many  of  our  theories  and  illusions 
has  brought  home  to  us,  convincingly,  a  realization  ^of 
the  fact  that  we  are  a  member  of  the  great  family  of 
nations,  and  that  we  can  no  more  relieve  ourselves  of  the 
responsibilities  and  duties  of  that  position,  than  can  one 
of  the  states  of  this  Union  reheve  itself  of  the  responsi- 
bihties  and  duties  growing  out  of  its  membership  in  the 
great  federation  of  the  United  States,  or  can  any  man 
divest  himseh  of  the  responsibilities  for  the  main- 
tenance and  care  of  the  members  of  his  own  family. 

This,  my  friends,  is  the  opportunity  and  privilege 
which  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  holds  out  to  us  and 
to  every  thinking  man  and  woman  in  the  United  States 
to-day.  As  with  everything  else  in  the  world,  which  is 
really  worth  the  doing,  it  requires  of  us  personal  service 
and  service  implies  sacrifice.  We  must  enter  into  this 
great  work  with  enthusiasm  and  with  zeal.  If,  as  we 
beheve  it  to  be,  it  is  easily  the  most  important  and  far- 
reaching  subject  which  can  appeal  to  the  human  mind, 
then  we  must  enter  upon  its  prosecution  with  a  high 
purpose,  to  give  our  thoughts,  our  time,  ourenergies,  and 
our  means  to  arousing  the  dormant  conscience  of  Ameri- 
cans; to  instill  in  them  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of 
man.    It  is  not  often  that  the  opportunity  comes  to  the 


148  ENFORCED  PEACE 

individual  citizen  to  take  an  active  part  in  a  great  world 
movement,  to  feel  that  its  success,  in  a  measure,  depends 
upon  his  individual  effort,  but  it  is  so  in  this,  and  that 
thought  should  inspire  us  to  our  best  efforts.  What  is 
needed  in  this  country  of  ours  is  a  revival  of  the  ideals  of 
the  founders  of  the  Repubhc:  a  rekindling  of  the  fires  of 
patriotism  and  broad  humanity  which  burned  so 
brightly  in  the  early  days  of  this  country's  life. 

The  extraordinary  success  which  has  been  ours  in 
commerce  and  industry  has  insidiously  weaned  us 
away  from  the  things  of  the  spirit,  which  only  are 
eternal,  and  threaten  to  foster  in  us  a  selfish  commer- 
cialism whose  poisonous  vapors  tend  to  stifle  all  the 
generous  and  natural  aspirations  of  a  free  people. 
What  is  most  needed,  therefore,  in  my  judgment,  for 
a  general  acceptance  by  the  people  of  the  United 
States  of  the  proposals  of  the  League,  is  to  arouse  and 
stimulate  the  national  conscience — to  cultivate  a  broader 
view  of  our  duties  and  responsibilities,  as  a  member  of 
the  great  society  of  nations,  and  so  as  a  people,  acquire  a 
spiritual  vision  which  will  lead  us  to  do  our  utmost  in 
solving  the  problem  of  the  ages,  and  help  us  and  the 
world  to  hasten  the  time  when  we  will  measurably,  at 
least,  realize  that  greatest  of  all  benedictions  conferred 
upon  the  human  race:  "Peace  on  Earth,  Good  Will 
toward  Men." 

J.  MoTT  Hallowell,  attorney,  of  Boston,  dis- 
cussed organization  plans  more  exhaustively  in 
the  following  paper : 

PLANNING   THE   CAMPAIGN 

A  plan  of  organization  is  Uke  a  problem  in  mathe- 
matics with  a  human  element  added.  The  most 
effective  plan  is  that  one  which  is  planned  as  a  strategist 
plans  a  campaign.     First,  determine  exactly  the  ulti- 


J.  MOTT  HALLOWELL 


ENFORCED  PEACE  149 

mate  goal  which  it  is  sought  to  reach.  Second,  esti- 
mate the  forces  which  must  be  marshalled  in  order  to  be 
able  to  overcome  the  obstacles  which  lie  between  you 
and  the  goal.  Third,  work  out  the  plan  for  securing 
these  forces  and  putting  them  into  effective  operation. 

The  ultimate  goal  of  the  American  Branch  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  to  have  the  United  States 
lead  the  way  in  forming  a  league  of  nations  which  will 
carry  out  the  proposals  of  the  League. 

The  force  which  must  be  marshalled  in  the  United 
States  in  order  to  reach  that  goal  and  successfully  to 
maintain  the  position  when  reached  is  the  indorsement, 
with  understanding,  of  a  commanding  number  of  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  favorable  opinion  of 
scholars,  statesmen,  and  even  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  a  ratifying  Senate  is  not  enough. 

This  is  so  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  prob- 
ably any  national  administration,  before  attempting  to 
bind  the  United  States  to  such  a  radical  step,  would 
much  prefer  to  feel  that  the  proposals  and  their  logical 
consequences  were  understood  and  endorsed  by  those 
people  upon  whose  backing  the  administration  must 
depend  if  the  United  States,  after  joining  the  league  of 
nations,  should  be  called  upon  to  do  its  part  in  enforcing 
the  peace.  In  the  second  place,  because  if  any  adminis- 
tration should  so  pledge  the  faith  of  our  country  and 
should  afterward  be  called  upon  to  make  good  its  word, 
its  abiHty  to  do  so  would  depend  upon  the  strength  of 
the  public  opinion  endorsing  the  pledge.  Without  the 
endorsement  of  this  pubUc  opinion  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  ratifying  Senate  would  not  have 
formed  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  but  would  merely 
have  attached  the  official  signature  of  the  United 
States  to  one  more  scrap  of  paper.  Within  any  republic 
the  strength  of  this  international  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  will  vary  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  the 
pubhc  opinion  which  backs  its  proposals,  because  this,  in 


I50  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  last  resort,  is  the  force  to  which  the  administration 
in  power  must  appeal  in  order  to  provide  ways  and 
means  to  enable  it  to  carry  out  its  part  of  the  inter- 
national agreement. 

The  third  and  present  step,  therefore,  in  the  plan  of 
organization  of  the  American  Branch  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  should  be  to  devise  ways  and  means  for 
having  its  proposals  understood  and  endorsed  by  a 
majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  It  might 
well  be  that  official  action  before  this  endorsement  is 
secured  might  be  premature  and  invite  initial  defeat. 
When  this  popular  approval  is  secured,  favorable  action 
by  any  administration  in  power  will  follow  almost  as  an 
inevitable  consequence. 

The  first  essential  in  a  methodical  plan  for  securing 
the  favorable  public  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  is  that  the  active  work  in  building 
up  a  public  following  should  be  done  by  state  branches, 
one  in  each  state.  If  a  successful  state  branch  can  be 
estabhshed  in  every  state,  national  success  will  come 
rapidly.  No  national  organization  for  our  purpose  can 
conduct  a  campaign  over  the  entire  country.  There 
should  be  forty-eight  campaigns  going  on  at  the  same 
time,  one  in  each  state,  and  each  conducted  by  its  local 
state  branch. 

The  plan  suggested  below  for  organizing  state 
branches  has  already  been  tried  for  five  months  in  the 
state  of  Massachusetts  and  so  far  has  worked  success- 
fully. It  may  very  well  be  true,  however,  and  probably 
is,  that  in  different  states  this  plan  would  have  to  be 
modified  in  order  to  meet  varying  local  conditions. 

The  following  is  submitted  as  a  practicable  plan  of 
procedure. 

Mr.  Hallo  well  here  proceeded  to  give  a  minutely 
detailed  account  of  the  steps  in  organizing  the  state 


ENFORCED  PEACE  151 

of  Massachusetts.  Experience  here  taught  that  a 
minimum  capital  of  five  thousand  dollars  was  re- 
quired with  which  to  begin  organization.  It  was 
further  found  that  the  Secretary  and  the  Chairman 
of  the  State  organization  had  to  devote  practically 
all  their  time  to  League  affairs  for  the  first  six 
months.     Mr.  Hallowell  continued: 

The  appeal  of  the  League  is  not  to  the  emotions  but  to 
the  intellect.  In  many  other  appeals  for  public  support 
an  advocate  starts  either  with  an  appeal  to  the  emotions 
or  with  an  appeal  for  a  purpose  the  merit  of  which  is 
admitted,  as  for  instance  raising  money  to  assist  the 
suflferers  from  a  volcanic  eruption  or  a  great  fire.  The 
proposals  of  the  League,  however,  are  to  most  people  so 
novel  that  a  condition  precedent  to  obtaining  this  sup- 
port is  an  appeal  to  their  intellect  to  show  that  the 
cause  has  merit.  This  will  account  in  many  places  for 
its  slow  growth  where  less  important  but  more  emotional 
causes  obtain  rapid  success.  It  will  on  the  other  hand, 
however,  give  it  lasting  strength. 

The  work  of  the  national  organization  should  in- 
clude work  of  the  nature  usually  done  by  a  general  staff, 
namely  to  assist  and  cooperate  with  the  state  branches. 
It  should  insist  that  the  monthly  reports  on  progress  be 
filed  with  it  regularly  by  each  state  branch.  These  re- 
ports should  be  carefully  studied,  and  assistance  to  the 
state  branch  either  by  advice  or  by  other  ways  should 
be  furnished  where  needed.  In  this  way  the  national 
organization  will  guide  the  entire  campaign,  will  know 
just  what  progress  is  being  made  in  each  state,  just 
where  work  is  most  needed,  and  where  it  can  be  most 
effectively  done.  It  will  also  have  the  requisite  data  to 
enable  it  to  know  with  some  degree  of  intelligence  when 
a  majority  of  the  people  of  this  country  endorses  the 
proposals  of  the  League.     When  this  time  arrives  the 


152  ENFORCED  PEACE 

next  step  will  be  the  work  of  applying  the  force  which 
will  have  been  created;  in  other  words,  causing  the 
United  States  Government  to  begin  the  formation  of  the 
league  of  nations.  To  make  action  by  any  national 
administration  effective  it  ought  to  have  the  backing  of 
a  big  majority  of  the  states. 

Methods  of  enlisting  the  support  of  public 
opinion  were  discussed  by  Herbert  S.  Houston,  M.A., 
president  of  the  Associated  Advertising  Clubs  of 
the  World,  vice-president  of  Doubleday,  Page  & 
Co.,  publishers,  and  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Information  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  in 
the  following  remarks: 

PUBLICITY  PLANS 

I  am  asked  to  speak  about  our  publicity  plans.  I 
was  reminded  as  I  sat  there  of  Burke,  standing  in  the 
Commons,  pointing  to  the  reporters  in  the  gallery,  and 
saying:  "There  sit  the  Fourth  Estate,  and  through 
them  I  speak  to  all  the  miUions  of  English-speaking 
people."  There  are  two  or  three  thousand  people 
gathered  here,  but  through  the  newspaper  men  sitting 
here  at  these  desks  have  gone  out  over  the  wires  mes- 
sages and  cables,  information  and  news,  which  have 
been  on  the  first  page  of  every  newspaper  in  the  world, 
and  to-morrow  morning  with  President  Wilson's 
address  we  shall  have  first-page  position  in  every  im- 
portant newspaper  in  the  United  States  and  the  world. 

We  have  undertaken  to  be  not  a  publicity  committee 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  trying  to  get  from  newspapers 
space  that  they  sometimes  give  but  grudgingly,  but  have 
gone  to  newspapers  and  great  periodicals  of  America 
and  said,  "Here  is  a  great  international  movement  of 
the  highest  importance  to  every  thinking  man  in  every 
countrv  in  Christendom,  and  this  committee  wants  to 


Copyright,  Underwood  iS  Vnder:iooa 

HERBERT  S.  HOUSTON,  M.A. 

Treasurer  and  Chairman  of  Committee  on  Information,  League  to 

Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  153 

cooperate  with  the  newspapers  and  publishers  and  give 
them  what  they  want."  That  is  the  policy  which  your 
committee  has  followed  from  the  beginning. 

Let  me  illustrate  how  that  has  worked  out  with  the 
Chambers  of  Commerce  referendum.  That  referendum 
was  submitted  and  we  followed  it  up  with  a  plan  of 
localizing  our  news.  Judge  Taft  prepared  a  most  in- 
teresting statement  that  was  sent  to  the  president  of 
every  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  the  country.  We  sent 
this  statement  also  from  headquarters  in  New  York  to 
every  paper;  for  example,  to  Richmond,  Va.,  and  when 
Mr.  John  Stewart  Bryan  sent  a  reporter  to  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  he  got,  as  local  news,  this  letter  from  Judge 
Taft,  supplemented  by  an  interview  with  the  president 
of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Richmond.  And  that 
happened  all  over  the  United  States.  I  could  have 
brought  here  to-day  practically  a  trainload  of  clippings. 
We  are  having  thousands  and  thousands  of  columns  in 
the  leading  newspapers  of  America,  in  the  leading  news- 
papers and  journals  of  the  world. 

It  is  not  due  to  any  cleverness  on  the  part  of  your 
committee,  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we  are  cooperating 
with  the  newspapers  to  give  them  what  they  want. 
When  we  began  the  question  as  to  the  word  "pub- 
licity" came  up.  All  American  newspapers  have  in- 
tense dislike  for  the  very  word  "publicity."  Dr. 
Lowell,  by  a  real  stroke  of  genius,  solved  the  question. 
Horace  in  the  Ars  Poetica  says  that  a  man  wins  im- 
mortality who  creates  a  word.  Dr.  Lowell  surely  wins 
that  immortaUty,  because  he  suggested  that  we  call  the 
committee  the  Committee  on  Information.  And  that 
is  what  we  have  tried  to  be,  a  committee  on  information. 

As  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Information,  I 
want  to  give  some  information  about  a  man  whose  name 
has  not  been  mentioned  yet  in  this  convention,  as  far  as 
I  know,  a  man  who  in  season  and  out  of  season  has  been 
doing  the  work  of  this  organization,  from  that  heated 


154  ENFORCED  PEACE 

day  in  June  in  Independence  Hall,  when  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  was  formed. 

I  refer  to  that  great,  silent,  modest,  tireless  secretary 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  WilHam  H.  Short.  In 
an  experience  of  twenty-five  years  in  organizations,  in 
business,  and  in  the  publishing  field,  I  have  never  seen  a 
man  who  was  such  a  tremendous  dynamo  of  energy  and 
resistless  power.  In  the  publishing  business  we  are  al- 
ways seeing  men  who  are  spectacular,  who  are  con- 
tinually seeking  the  spothght.  Here  is  a  man  who 
shrinks  from  putting  himseh  into  the  spotlight.  But  it 
is  men  of  that  t3TDe,  who  are  willing  to  sacrifice  to  the 
uttermost,  who  will  make  this  work  that  we  are  doing 
known  all  over  the  world. 

William  H.  Wadhams,  A.B.,  LL.B.,  Judge  of 
the  Court  of  General  Sessions  of  New  York,  pre- 
sented the  following  paper: 

MOBILIZATION  OF  OUR  FORCES 

We  propose  a  Council  of  Conciliation  and  a  Court  of 
General  Sessions  of  the  Peace  of  the  World.  How  are 
we  going  to  bring  the  nations  into  court?  If  a  man 
violates  the  law,  he  is  brought  into  court  by  the  police. 
But  the  police  are  but  a  small  number  of  men  represent- 
ing the  whole  citizenship.  So  behind  the  police  we  must 
have  a  public  opinion  which  supports  the  pohce.  The 
poKce  are  necessary  to  give  instant  and  organized  ex- 
pression to  that  public  opinion  which  sustains  them. 

The  real  power  which  brings  men  into  court  is  the 
public  opinion  behind  the  police.  That  opinion  is  based 
upon  the  ideals  of  our  country.  It  is  our  conception  of 
right  between  man  and  man,  our  conception  of  the 
meaning  of  the  right  to  enjoy  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness  which  sustains  the  police.  We  have 
set  up  standards  of  individual  conduct  which  hale  men 


Photo  by  Pack  Bros. 

W.  H.  WADHAMS,  A.B.,  LL.B. 

Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  155 

into  court  when  those  standards  are  defied.  If  nations 
are  to  sustain  a  world  court  they  must  set  up  standards 
of  international  conduct  which  will  hale  nations  into  the 
world  court. 

What  are  the  means  by  which  we  may  bring  this 
about?  We  must  first  mobilize  our  forces  in  America. 
We  must  mobilize  the  great  forces  that  make  and  direct 
pubHc  opinion.  We  must  go  forward  with  our  national 
and  state  organizations  and  thereby  spur  existing  pubUc 
opinion  and  bring  together  those  who  already  have  the 
fight.  We  must  organize  the  torch  bearers.  When  I 
was  helping  to  take  up  the  collection  this  morning,  one 
man  handed  me  this  card,  on  which  he  had  written: 
"To  help  carry  forward  the  work  of  the  League  I  sub- 
scribe service."  If  there  is  to  be  a  conquest  of  reason 
and  a  sweeping  away  of  ignorance  and  tyranny,  we 
must  have  the  enlistment  of  service.  But  we  must  do 
more  than  organize  our  own  numbers,  we  must  make 
use  of  all  existing  agencies. 

The  principal  reason  for  the  failure  of  the  new  genera- 
tion to  reach  the  height  to  which  it  should  have  climbed 
over  the  mistakes  of  the  past  is  the  neglect  of  child  cul- 
ture. The  greatest  cause  of  the  continuance  of  war  is 
the  neglect  of  child  culture.  The  most  impressionable 
material  in  the  world  is  the  mind  of  a  child.  He  who 
moulds  the  mind  of  a  child  is  creating  a  force  that  is 
going  to  throw  out  energy  even  as  radium  does,  a  con- 
tinuing force  that  is  to  make  the  future  of  the  world. 
Wh  "!n  we  look  into  the  eyes  of  a  fittle  child  we  are  look- 
ing into  the  eyes  of  the  future.  We  have  more  power 
than  the  prophets;  they  merely  declare  their  forecast 
of  the  future;  but  when  we  shape  the  mind  of  a  child 
we  mould  the  future  of  the  world. 

If  we  are  to  have  a  new  world  we  must  have  a  new 
education.  We  must  have  a  new  education  in  element- 
ary schools.  Examine  the  books  which  are  read  in  the 
nursery  and  which  are  put  into  the  hands  of  our  fittle  boys 


156  ENFORCED  PEACE 

and  girls  and  which  mould  their  first  impressions.  Will 
you  be  astonished  to  find  that  slaughter  and  fighting  and 
war  are  made  to  seem  good  and  wise?  Then  the  child 
goes  to  school  and  is  imconsciously  taught  to  march 
where  the  last  generation  marched.  History  must 
be  taught.  The  story  of  the  race  and  of  the  na- 
tion must  be  told;  it  may  be  so  taught  as  to  be  a 
guide  to  the  future,  to  illustrate  sacrifice  for  great 
causes,  to  inspire  valor  and  patriotism.  But  many 
elementary  histories  glorify  victory  by  arms  regardless 
of  its  purpose  and  mark  the  triumphs  of  history  by  the 
number  of  dead  and  exalt  the  conquerors,  those  who 
produced  the  greatest  slaughter,  as  the  heroes  of  the 
world,  merely  because  they  were  successful  in  war.  To 
so  teach  a  child  who  has  not  yet  learned  the  great  prin- 
ciples and  purposes  of  government  is  to  corrupt  the 
young  mind.  It  may  be  that  we  should  postpone  the 
teaching  of  elementary  history  until  it  can  be  taught  to 
minds  already  mature  enough  to  understand  its  mean- 
ing. ^ 

Again,  Latin  is  an  important  study  as  a  foundation  of 
language.  How  important  I  leave  to  the  pedagogues. 
Our  boys  and  girls  begin  their  study  of  Latin  by  march- 
ing through  Gaul  with  Caesar,  following  the  Roman 
eagles  to  victory  and  conquest.  Always  marching, 
fighting,  killing  as  a  glorious  occupation!  Is  it  neces- 
sary to  culture  that  we  should  take  an  instrumentaUty, 
which  while  teaching  the  mind  to  think,  moulds  it  to  a 
standard  that  has  meant  disaster  in  the  past?  The 
mind  must  be  trained  in  perception,  in  analysis,  in 
memory,  but  let  us  see  to  it  that  the  means  which  are 
used  to  train  the  mind  do  not  themselves  poison  the 
mind. 

Let  us  summon  all  the  college  presidents  to  help 
mobiUze  our  forces.  The  colleges  not  only  exert  great 
influence  over  their  students  and  the  public,  but  also 
determine  what  shall  be  taught  in  the  secondary  schools. 


ENFORCED  PEACE  157 

I  would  prescribe  as  a  requirement  for  admission  to 
every  college  an  elementary  course  in  world  peace. 
Let  us  mobilize  all  the  teachers  of  youth  who  are  going 
to  build  for  us  the  generation  to  come,  in  whose  hands  is 
to  be  placed  the  fate  of  the  world.  Is  it  not  time  to 
direct  our  attention  to  the  study  of  those  things  which 
will  produce  a  citizenship  with  the  vision  and  determina- 
tion to  put  into  effect  and  maintain  the  new  order?  If 
we  are  really  in  earnest  let  us  teach  that  an  appeal  to 
reason  is  more  noble  than  an  appeal  to  force,  that  jus- 
tice is  of  greater  value  than  might.  If  we  are  really 
in  earnest  we  must  provide  a  new  education  that  will 
give  us  new  ideals,  a  new  pubhc  conscience  that  will 
sustain  the  court  we  propose  to  establish. 

We  must  also  call  upon  the  women  of  America  to  help 
us  mobilize  our  forces.  The  women  have  great  power 
to  help.  They  have  a  knowledge  of  the  value  of  life. 
They  beheve  in  the  conservation  of  men.  They  beUeve 
that  the  greatest  sacrifice  is  not  in  death  but  in  Ufe,  in 
service  to  the  world.  The  women  can  do  much  to 
establish  the  new  standards.  They  direct  the  thought  of 
men,  for  the  man's  mind  is  fashioned  at  his  mother's 
knee,  when  as  a  boy  he  receives  those  first  impressions 
that  stay  with  him  through  Ufe,  that  guide  him  in  all  his 
actions.  We  should  mobilize  the  women's  organizations 
and  clubs  and  summon  to  our  aid  the  teachers  and  the 
business  and  professional  women. 

And  we  should  have  the  help  of  organized  labor,  and 
we  should  have  the  help  of  organized  agriculture,  for 
they  gain  the  least  and  suffer  most  by  war.  We  should 
mobilize  business  and  call  on  Chambers  of  Commerce 
and  Merchants  Associations,  because  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  all  nations  is  essential  to  the  prosperity  of 
each.  We  should  welcome  the  aid  of  the  peace  so- 
cieties, because  we  share  their  vision  of  universal  peace. 

Those  who  believe  in  preparedness  should  give  us  aid 
for  our  program  takes  the  curse  of  miUtarism  from  pre- 


158  ENFORCED  PEACE 

paredness.  We  should  prepare.  But  what  is  adequate 
preparedness?  That  is  a  difficult  question  to  answer. 
Are  we  to  build  navies  in  competition  with  the  navies  of 
the  world?  Are  we  to  enhst  armies  in  competition  with 
the  armies  of  the  world?  Are  we  to  burden  ourselves 
with  intolerable  taxation  after  the  manner  of  the  old 
world?  Our  League  presents  the  only  answer,  for  with 
the  formation  of  a  league  of  nations  to  enforce  peace,  the 
measure  of  preparedness — that  is  of  armed  force — would 
be  the  pro  rata  share  of  each  country  to  the  united  force 
necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  peace.  Our  plan  lifts 
the  burden  of  preparedness  and  shows  the  way  to  dis- 
armament. 

There  are  some  things  worse  than  war.  Slavery  is 
worse  than  war;  failure  to  assert  righteousness  against 
unrighteousness  is  worse  than  war.  If  we  do  not  have 
any  other  means,  we  will  have  to  resort  to  force.  We 
are  now  dependent  on  force.  It  is  a  substitution  of 
other  and  better  means  that  we  propose  to  provide. 
Armament  is  to  be  used  to  assure  a  hearing,  and  thereby 
guarantee  peace.  This  plan  of  ours  imposes  upon  pre- 
paredness a  peaceful  purpose.  It  is  a  justification  of 
preparedness. 

Our  preparedness  shall  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  of 
maintaining  peace.  We  propose  to  the  nations  of  the 
world  a  new  era  of  order  and  justice.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose longer  to  tolerate  aggression;  we  recognize  the 
family  of  nations,  each  with  the  right  to  develop  in  its 
own  sphere,  we  desire  no  territory,  we  desire  no  spheres 
of  influence,  we  are  ready  to  submit  our  demands  to  a 
world  court  and  to  withliold  action  until  judgment  is 
pronounced.  Our  preparedness  is  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  the  rule  of  reason  and  to  maintain  the 
Court  of  the  World.  This  is  a  new  patriotism  greater 
than  has  ever  prevailed  in  the  world  before. 


Copyright,  Harris  \i  Etving,  Washington,  D.  C. 

WOODROW  WILSON 

President  of  the  United  States 


CHAPTER  VI 

BROADER  ASPECTS  OF  THE  LEAGUE 
PROGRAM 

Throughout  the  sessions  of  the  first  annual 
assemblage  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  dis- 
cussion was  maintained  on  a  lofty  plane.  The 
climax  was  reached  by  President  Wilson,  who 
made  the  closing  address  at  the  dinner  which 
ended  the  conference.     President  Wilson  said: 

When  the  invitation  to  be  here  to-night  came  to  me,  I 
was  glad  to  accept  it — not  because  it  offered  me  an  op- 
portunity to  discuss  the  program  of  the  League — that 
you  will,  I  am  sure,  not  expect  of  me — but  because  the 
desire  of  the  whole  world  now  turns  eagerly,  more  and 
more  eagerly,  toward  the  hope  of  peace,  and  thereis  just 
reason  why  we  should  take  our  part  in  counsel  upon  this 
great  theme.  It  is  right  that  I,  as  spokesman  of  our 
Government,  should  attempt  to  give  expression  to  what 
I  beUeve  to  be  the  thought  and  purpose  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States  in  this  vital  matter. 

This  great  war  that  broke  so  suddenly  upon  the  world 
two  years  ago,  and  which  has  swept  within  its  flame  so 
great  a  part  of  the  civilized  world,  has  affected  us  very 
profoundly,  and  we  are  not  only  at  hberty,  it  is  perhaps 
our  duty,  to  speak  very  frankly  of  it  and  of  the  great  in- 
terests of  civilization  which  it  aflfects. 

With  its  causes  and  its  objects  we  are  not  concerned. 
The  obscure  fountains  from  which  its  stupendous  flood 

159 


i6o  ENFORCED  PEACE 

has  burst  forth  we  are  not  interested  to  search  for  or  ex- 
plore.   But  so  great  a  flood,  spread  far  and  wide  to 
every  quarter  of  the  globe,  has  of  necessity  engulfed 
many  a  fair  province  of  right  that  Hes  very  near  to  us. 
Our  own  rights  as  a  Nation,  the  Uberties,  the  privileges, 
and  the  property  of  our  people  have  been  profoundly 
affected.     We  are  not  mere  disconnected  lookers-on. 
The  longer  the  war  lasts,  the  more  deeply  do  we  become 
concerned  that  it  shofuld  be  brought  to  an  end  and  the 
world  be  permitted  to  resume  its  normal  life  and  course 
again.    And  when  it  does  come  to  an  end  we  shall  be  as 
much  concerned  as  the  nations  at  war  to  see  peace 
assume  an  aspect  of  permanence,  give  promise  of  days 
from  which  the  anxiety  of  uncertainty  shall  be  lifted, 
bring  some  assurance  that  peace  and  war  shall  always 
hereafter  be  reckoned  part  of  the  common  interest  of 
p mankind.     We  are  participants,  whether  we  would  or 
\  not,  in  the  hfe  of  the  world.    The  interests  of  all  nations 
V'   j  are  our  own  also.     We  are  partners  with  the  rest. 
j  What  affects  mankind  is  inevitably  our  affair  as  well 
1  as  the  affair  of  the  nations  of  Europe  and  of  Asia. 

One  observation  on  the  causes  of  the  present  war  we 
are  at  liberty  to  make,  and  to  make  it  may  throw  some 
hght  forward  upon  the  future,  as  well  as  backward  upon 
the  past.  It  is  plain  that  this  war  could  have  come  only 
as  it  did,  suddenly  and  out  of  secret  counsels,  without 
warning  to  the  world,  without  discussion,  without  any  of 
the  deliberate  movements  of  counsel  with  which  it 
would  seem  natural  to  approach  so  stupendous  a  con- 
test. It  is  probable  that  if  it  had  been  foreseen  just 
what  would  happen,  just  what  alliances  would  be  formed, 
just  what  forces  arrayed  against  one  another,  those 
who  brought  the  great  contest  on  would  have  been 
glad  to  substitute  conference  for  force.  If  we  our- 
selves had  been  afforded  some  opportunity  to  appraise 
the  belligerents  of  the  attitude  which  it  would  be  our 
duty  to  take,  of  the  policies  and  practices  against  which 


ENFORCED  PEACE  i6r 

we  would  feel  bound  to  use  all  our  moral  and  economic 
strength,  and  in  certain  circumstances  even  our  physical 
strength  also,  our  own  contribution  to  the  counsel  which 
might  have  averted  the  struggle  would  have  been  con- 
sidered worth  weighing  and  regarding. 

And  the  lesson  which  the  shock  of  being  taken  by 
surprise  in  a  rhatter  so  deeply  vital  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  world  has  made  poignantly  clear  is,  that  the  peace  of 
the  world  must  henceforth  depend  upon  a  new  and  more 
wholesome  diplomacy.  Only  when  the  great  nations  of 
the  world  have  reached  some  sort  of  agreement  as  ta 
what  they  hold  to  be  fundamental  to  their  common  in- 
terest, and  as  to  some  feasible  method  of  acting  in  con- 
cert when  any  nation  or  group  of  nations  seeks  to  disturb 
those  fundamental  things,  can  we  feel  that  civilization 
is  at  last  in  a  way  of  justifying  its  existence  and  claiming 
to  be  finally  estabhshed.  It  is  clear  that  nations  must  | 
in  the  future  be  governed  by  the  same  high  code  of  i 
honor  that  we  demand  of  individuals. 

We  must,  indeed,  in  the  very  same  breath  with 
which  we  avow  this  conviction,  admit  that  we  have 
ourselves  upon  occasion  in  the  past  been  offenders 
against  the  law  of  diplomacy  which  we  thus  forecast; 
but  our  conviction  is  not  the  less  clear,  but  rather  the 
more  clear,  on  that  account.  If  this  war  has  accom- 
pHshed  nothing  else  for  the  benefit  of  the  world,  it 
has  at  least  disclosed  a  great  moral  necessity  and  set 
forward  the  thinking  of  the  statesmen  of  the  world 
by  a  whole  age.  Repeated  utterances  of  the  leading 
statesmen  of  most  of  the  great  nations  now  engaged 
in  war  have  made  it  plain  that  their  thought  has  come 
to  this,  that  the  principle  of  public  right  must  hence- 
forth take  precedence  over  the  individual  interests 
of  particular  nations,  and  that  the  nations  of  the  world 
must  in  some  way  band  themselves  together  to  see 
that  that  right  prevails  as  against  any  sort  of  selfish 
aggression;  that  henceforth  alliance  must  not  be  set 


\ 


\ 


162  ENFORCED  PEACE 

up  against  alliance,  understanding  against  under- 
standing, but  that  there  must  be  a  common  agreement 
for  a  common  object,  and  that  at  the  heart  of  that 
common  object  must  lie  the  inviolable  rights  of  peoples 
and  of  mankind.  The  nations  of  the  world  have  be- 
come each  other's  neighbors.  It  is  to  their  interest 
that  they  should  understand  each  other.  In  order  that 
they  may  understand  each  other,  it  is  imperative  that 
they  should  agree  to  cooperate  in  a  common  cause, 
and  that  they  should  so  act  that  the  guiding  principles 
of  that  common  cause  shall  be  even-handed  and  im- 
partial justice. 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  thought  of  America.  This 
is  what  we  ourselves  will  say  when  there  comes  proper 
occasion  to  say  it.  In  the  dealings  of  nations  with 
one  another  arbitrary  force  must  be  rejected  and  we 
must  move  forward  to  the  thought  of  the  modern  world, 
the  thought  of  which  peace  is  the  very  atmosphere. 
That  thought  constitutes  a  chief  part  of  the  passionate 
conviction  of  America. 

We  beUeve  these  fundamental  things:  First,  that 
every  people  has  a  right  to  choose  the  sovereignty 
under  which  they  shall  live.  Like  other  nations,  we 
have  ourselves  no  doubt  once  and  again  offended 
against  that  principle  when  for  a  Uttle  while  controlled 
by  selfish  passion,  as  our  franker  historians  have  been 
honorable  enough  to  admit;  but  it  has  become  more 
and  more  our  rule  of  life  and  action.  Second,  that 
the  small  states  of  the  world  have  a  right  to  enjoy  the 
same  respect  for  their  sovereignty  and  for  their  terri- 
torial integrity  that  great  and  powerful  nations  ex- 
pect and  insist  upon.  And,  third,  that  the  world  has 
a  right  to  be  free  from  every  disturbance  of  its  peace 
that  has  its  origin  in  aggression  and  disregard  of  the 
1         rights  of  peoples  and  nations. 

So  sincerely  do  we  believe  in  these  things  that  I  am 
sure  that  I  speak  the  mind  and  wish  of  the  people  of 


ENFORCED  PEACE  163 

America  when  I  say  that  the  United  States  is  willing 
to  become  a  partner  in  any  feasible  association  of 
nations  formed  in  order  to  realize  these  objects  and 
make  them  secure  against  violation. 

There  is  nothing  that  the  United  States  wants  for 
itself  that  any  other  nation  has.  We  are  willing,  on 
the  contrary,  to  limit  ourselves  along  with  them  to  a 
prescribed  course  of  duty  and  respect  for  the  rights 
of  others  which  will  check  any  selfish  passion  of  our 
own,  as  it  will  check  any  aggressive  impulse  of 
theirs. 

If  it  should  ever  be  our  privilege  to  suggest  or  initiate 
a  movement  for  peace  among  the  nations  now  at  war, 
I  am  sure  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  would 
wish  their  Government  to  move  along  these  hnes:  First, 
such  a  settlement  with  regard  to  their  own  immediate 
interests  as  the  belligerents  may  agree  upon.  We  have 
nothing  material  of  any  kind  to  ask  for  ourselves,  and 
are  quite  aware  that  we  are  in  no  sense  or  degree 
parties  to  the  present  quarrel.  Our  interest  is  only  in 
peace  and  its  future  guarantees.  Second,  an  univer- 
sal association  of  the  nations  to  maintain  the  inviolate 
security  of  the  highway  of  the  seas  for  the  common  and 
unhindered  use  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  to 
prevent  any  war  begun  either  contrary  to  treaty 
covenants  or  without  warning  and  full  submission 
of  the  causes  to  the  opinion  of  the  world,  a  virtual 
guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and  political  indepen- 
dence. 

But  I  did  not  come  here,  let  me  repeat,  to  discuss  a 
program.  I  came  only  to  avow  a  creed  and  give 
expression  to  the  confidence  I  feel  that  the  world  is 
even  now  upon  the  eve  of  a  great  consummation,  when 
some  common  force  will  be  brought  into  existence 
which  shall  safeguard  right  as  the  first  and  most 
fundamental  interest  of  all  peoples  and  all  govern- 
ments, when  coercion  shall  be  summoned  not  to  the 


i64  ENFORCED  PEACE 

service  of  political  ambition  or  selfish  hostility,  but 
to  the  service  of  a  common  order,  a  common  justice, 
and  a  common  peace.  God  grant  that  the  dawn  of 
that  day  of  frank  dealing  and  of  settled  peace,  con- 
cord, and  cooperation  may  be  near  at  hand! 

Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  A.B.,  LL.B.,  Ph.D., 
United  States  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  and 
a  member  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
relations,  spoke  of  the 

GREAT  WORK  OF  THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

It  is  well,  in  understanding  anv  great  work,  and  the 
work  of  this  League  is  a  very  great  work  indeed,  to 
know  precisely  where  we  stand;  and  I  have  been  glad 
to  learn  that  the  League  has  laid  down  as  a  principle 
that  it  is  not  engaged  in  attempting  to  bring  the  war 
in  Europe  to  an  end,  that  its  work  hes  beyond  that 
war,  for  I  have  a  somewhat  deep  impression  that 
when  the  peace  we  all  hope  for  comes,  it  will  not  be 
brought  about  by  expeditions  from  the  United  States, 
nor  by  mass  meetings  and  resolutions,  no  matter  how 
admirable  such  resolutions  may  be.  The  United 
States  has  led  the  world  in  the  matter  of  arbitration. 
From  the  day  of  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1794  and  the 
Pinckney  Treaty  of  1795  down  to  191 2,  eight-four 
arbitration  treaties  had  been  negotiated  by  the  execu- 
tive of  the  United  States,  eighty-three  had  been  ratified 
by  the  Senate,  and  only  one,  the  treaty  of  1897  with 
England,  rejected.  I  think  that  is  a  remarkable  rec- 
ord. We  have  carried  the  principle  of  voluntary 
arbitration  to  its  Umit,  and  it  is  well  to  recognize  that 
it  has  a  limit,  because  when  we  undertake  to  put  into 
treaties  for  voluntary  arbitration  questions  which  no 
nation,  when  the  stress  comes,  will  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion, we  do  not  advance  the  cause  of  peace,  but  quite  the 


Copyright,  CUnedinst,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HENRY  CABOT  LODGE.  A.B..  LL.B.,  Ph.D 

United  States  Senator  from  Massachusetts 


ENFORCED  PEACE  165 

reverse;  for  we  do  vast  mischief  by  making  treaties 
which  we  know  in  our  hearts  we  are  not  prepared  to 
carry  out  when  the  time  comes. 

The  limit  of  volimtary  arbitration  has,  I  think,  been 
reached.  Much  has  been  achieved  by  it.  It  has  taken 
out  of  the  range  of  arms  a  large  mass  of  questions  which 
once  were  causes,  frequently  of  war,  constantly  of  re- 
prisals, and  by  the  general  consent  of  civilized  mankind 
has  put  them  before  a  tribunal  and  had  them  there  de- 
cided. If  we  have  reached  the  limit  of  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion what  is  the  next  step?  I  think  the  next  step  is  that  \/ 
which  this  League  proposes  and  that  is  to  put  force  be- 
hind international  peace.  We  may  not  solve  it  in  that 
way,  but  if  we  cannot  solve  it  in  that  way  it  can  be 
solved  in  no  other. 

You  cannot  keep  order  in  your  cities  unless  you  put  ' 
I'orce  behind  the  will  of  the  community  and  behind 
the  peace  of  the  citizens.  The  peace  of  your  states  is 
maintained  by  force.  It  rests  upon  the  militia  and 
the  constabulary  of  the  states.  The  peace  of  the 
United  States  can  only  be  secured  and  maintained  by 
an  ample,  thorough  national  defense.  We  have  not 
that  defense  now.  I  trust  that  we  have  entered  on  the 
path  that  will  lead  us  to  the  upbuilding  of  our  national 
defense  both  in  the  army  and  in  the  navy.  I  hope 
this  not  only  to  make  our  peace  secure,  but  because  we 
as  a  nation  shall  find  it  very  difficult  to  induce  others 
to  put  force  behind  peace  if  we  have  not  force  to  put 
behind  our  own  peace.  I  know,  and  no  one,  I  think, 
can  know  better  than  one  who  has  served  long  in  the 
Senate,  which  is  charged  with  an  important  share  of 
the  ratification  and  confirmation  of  all  treaties — no 
one  can,  I  think,  feel  more  deeply  than  I  do  the  dif- 
ficulties which  confront  us  in  the  work  which  this 
League  undertakes.  But  the  difficulties  cannot  be 
overcome  unless  we  try  to  overcome  them.  I  believe 
much  can  be  done.     Probably  it  will  be  irr^possible  to 


i66  ENFORCED  PEACE 

stop  all  wars,  but  it  certainly  will  be  possible  to  stop 
some  wars  and  thus  diminish  their  number.  The  way 
in  which  this  problem  is  to  be  worked  out  must  be 
left  to  this  League  and  to  those  who  are  giving  this 
great  question  the  study  which  it  deserves.  I  know  the 
obstacles.  I  know  how  quickly  we  shall  be  met  with 
the  statement  that  this  is  a  dangerous  question  which 
you  are  putting  into  your  agreement;  that  no  nation 
can  submit  to  the  judgment  of  other  nations,  and  we 
must  be  careful  at  the  beginning  not  to  attempt  too 
much.  I  know  the  difficulties  which  arise  when  we 
speak  of  anything  which  seems  to  involve  an  aUiance. 
But  I  do  not  believe  that  when  Washington  warned 
us  against  entangling  alliances  he  meant  for  one  mo- 
ment that  we  should  not  join  with  the  other  civilized 
nations  of  the  world  if  a  method  could  be  found  to 
diminish  war  and  encourage  peace. 

It  was  a  year  ago  that  in  delivering  the  Chancellor's 
address  at  Union  College,  I  made  an  argument  on 
this  theory:  that  if  we  were  to  promote  international 
peace  at  the  close  of  the  present  terrible  war,  if  we  were 
to  restore  international  law  as  it  must  be  restored,  we 
must  find  some  way  in  which  the  united  forces  of  the 
nations  could  be  put  behind  the  cause  of  peace  and  law. 
I  said  then  that  my  hearers  might  think  that  I  was 
picturing  a  Utopia,  but  it  is  in  the  search  for  Utopias 
that  great  discoveries  have  been  made.  "Not  failure, 
but  low  aim,  is  the  crime." 

This  League  certainly  has  the  highest  of  all  aims  for 
the  benefit  of  humanity,  and  because  the  pathway  is 
sown  with  difficulties  is  no  reason  that  we  should  turn 
from  it.  It  is  the  vision  of  a  perhaps  impossible  per- 
fection which  has  led  humanity  across  the  centuries. 
If  our  aspirations  are  for  that  which  is  great  and 
beautiful  and  good  and  beneficent  to  humanity,  even 
when  we  do  not  achieve  our  end,  even  if  the  results 
are  little,  we  can  at  least  remember  Arnold's  Unes: 


Photo  by  Matzenf,  Chicago 

SHAILER  MAITHEWS,  D.D.,  A.B.,  A.M.,  LL.D. 

Dean  of  Divinity  School,  Chicago  University 


ENFORCED  PEACE  167 

"  Charge  again,  then,  and  be  dumb. 
Let  the  victors,  when  they  come, 
When  the  forts  of  folly  fall. 
Find  your  body  at  the  wall." 

Shailer  Mathews,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Dean  of  the 
Divinity  School  of  Chicago  University  and  pres- 
ident of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ 
in  America,  discussed 

WHAT  THE  CHURCHES  HAVE  AT  STAKE  IN  THE  SUCCESS 
OF  THE   LEAGUE   TO   ENFORCE   PEACE 

It  is  one  of  the  gratifying  facts  of  recent  days  that 
Jew,  Romanist,  and  Protestant  have  united  in  cham- 
pioning the  cause  of  peace  as  a  great  common  divisor 
which  runs  through  all  rehgious  organizations.  The 
churches,  under  whatever  name  organized,  represent 
in  a  social  form  that  underlying  conviction  which  we 
all  have  that  the  significance  of  life  is  not  to  be  found 
simply  in  economic  forces,  but  rather  in  those  spiritual 
values  which  tower  above  all  economic,  geographic, 
miUtary,  and  even  social  forces.  These  churches  thus 
involved  in  a  common  interest  find  themselves  pro- 
foundly concerned  in  the  success  of  every  well-intended 
effort  to  bring  peace  into  history.  But  we  are  less 
interested  in  peace  than  in  the  causes  which  make 
peace  inevitable.  If  there  is  anything  worse  than  a 
war  based  upon  injustice,  it  is  a  peace  based  upon  in- 
justice. 

The  churches  have  at  stake  two  or  three  fundamental 
matters.  There  is  first  the  great  question  whether 
ideaUsm  of  a  spiritual  sort  can  be  made  practical  and 
administered.  Good  people  do  not  always  have  good 
sense.  The  attempt  to  organize  this  League  to  En- 
force Peace  is  an  attempt  to  bring  good  sense  into 
superlative  ideals. 


i68  ENFORCED  PEACE 

In  the  second  place,  the  churches  have  at  stake  the 
great  question  as  to  whether  moral  ideals  which  are 
significant  in  the  case  of  individuals  are  also  significant 
in  the  case  of  nations.  They  have  never  been  tried. 
The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  intends  to  try  them. 
God  be  with  it  in  its  attempt. 

In  the  third  place,  the  churches  have  at  stake  a 
closely  aUied  question,  which  is  more  than  a  question. 
It  is  a  fundamental  belief  of  every  religious  man  that 
an  ideal  becomes  an  enthusiasm  only  when  it  involves 
sacrifice.  An  ideal  that  costs  nothing  is  only  a  piece 
of  social  bric-a-brac.  IdeaHsm  for  which  you  are 
ready  to  die  has  a  driving  power  that  makes  history 
go  forward.  And  we  bring  forward  at  this  time,  in 
this  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  an  ideal  that  dares  call 
upon  nations  as  well  as  individuals  to  sacrifice.  It  is 
an  educational  appeal,  it  is  a  profoundly  spiritual 
appeal;  and  when  you  have  spirituality  coupled  witli 
education,  and  faith  in  God  coupled  with  common 
sense  you  have  a  marvellously  effective  combination. 

In  this  undertaking  the  church  also  dares  hope  that 
patriotism  will  become  a  cooperative  rather  than  a  bel- 
ligerent virtue.  There  are  many  people  who  are  ready 
to  die  for  their  country  who  will  not  pay  taxes  to  their 
country.  There  are  many  nations  who  are  ready  to 
fight  for  their  rights  who  are  not  ready  to  stand  for  other 
nation's  rights.  The  great  issue  before  humanity,  as  I 
see  it  at  the  present  time,  is  perfectly  simple,  to  be  for- 
mulated in  this  simple  way:  Are  you,  as  a  nation,  ready 
to  give  justice?  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  intends 
to  socialise  rights;  we  hope  to  handle  nations  as  posses- 
sing not  only  rights  but  duties.  We  hope  that  by  its 
program  it  wiU  be  shown  that  spirituaHty,  common 
sense,  and  cooperative  patriotism  may  be  united  into  a 
splendid,  devoted  effort  to  give  to  the  other  nations  the 
justice  which  we  claim  for  ourselves. 

And,  Mr.  President,  if  the  churches  have  something 


ENFORCED  PEACE  169 

at  stake,  in  the  success  of  this  League,  the  League  has 
something  at  stake  in  the  success  of  the  churches.  The 
church  is  not  a  parasite  on  social  progress.  In  the  same 
proportion  as  the  churches  realize  their  supreme  function 
in  social  evolution,  can  they  contribute  influences  which 
will  help  forward,  control,  and  rectify  social  progress  it- 
self. 

I  stand  for  religious  people,  who  are  not  ashamed  of 
being  religious.  Itishard  totalkof  reUgion  without  seem- 
ing to  talk  professionally,  but  in  all  seriousness  religion 
iaia  big  thing  in  life.  It  is  more  than  church-going.  A 
tremendous  passion  and  thirst  for  justice  characterizes 
our  new  religious  epoch.  We  have  something  to  give  to 
the  nations  that  will  make  this  League  possible,  because 
you  cannot  make  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace  successful 
among  people  who  do  not  want  peace.  All  reforms 
would  be  easy  if  it  were  not  for  folks.  And  the  church 
is  engaged  in  making  folks  interested  in  the  things  for 
which  this  League  stands.  Therefore  our  relationship 
is  mutual.  Religion  is  hardly  reUgion  if  it  does  not  tend 
to  express  itself  creatively.  And  reUgion  always  does 
express  itself  creatively  at  those  points  where  men  are 
stirred  by  some  great  social  ideal.  The  man  who  has  a 
religious  message,  whatever  may  be  his  creed,  whatever 
his  theology,  has  something  which  the  world  needs, 
and  which,  by  God's  grace,  at  the  present  time  it  will 
get.  Religion  has  become  international.  Religion  has 
ceased  to  be  a  matter  of  merely  saving  a  man's  soul  from 
something  which  may  happen  some  time  in  the  future. 
ReUgion  wants  to  look  out  for  dead  people,  but  it  has 
much  more  interest  in  live  people.  This  is  a  splendid 
opportunity  which  the  church  has.  It  can  swing  into 
the  great  movement  for  social  reform,  and  social  evolu- 
tion, and  social  recreation.  It  can  call  upon  a  world  of 
persons  who  have  come  out  of  the  universe  to  trust  the 
Spirit  of  the  Universe  whom  we  may  love  and  whom  we 
may  emulate  in  sacrificial  social-mindedness.     And  thus 


lyo  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  church  may  help  bring  in  a  kingdom  of  justice  and  of 
peace.  If  that  be  Utopia,  so  be  it.  I  would  rather  pre- 
pare for  Utopia  than  for  Hell. 

Prof.  Franklin  H.  Giddings,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Sociology  and  the  History  of  Civilization  at  Co- 
lumbia University,  former  president  of  the  Ameri- 
can Sociological  Society,  former  president  of  L'ln- 
stitut  Internationale  de  Sociologie,  and  author  of 
various  works  on  sociology,  presented  the  following 
paper : 

HOW  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  DEPENDS  ON  THE  SUCCESS  OF  THE 
LEAGUE  PLATFORM 

The  European  War  has  not  only  devastated:  it  has 
disillusioned.  In  the  life  of  every  successful  man  there 
comes  an  hour  of  maximum  peril  and  of  supreme  test. 
He  has  struggled  with  difficulty  and  with  disappoint- 
ment; so  far  he  has  been  safe.  Then,  perhaps  suddenly, 
achievement  and  recognition  have  awakened  in  him  a 
new  and  intoxicating  sense  of  power.  As  before  his 
imagination  exaggerated  difficulties  to  be  overcome,  so 
now  his  judgment  underestimates  the  obstacles  with 
which  he  has  yet  to  contend.  The  day  will  come  when 
he  will  find  himself  responsible  for  the  performance  of  ob- 
hgations  that  will  tax  aU  his  strength,  call  for  the  perfect 
play  of  his  intellectual  powers,  and  demand  the  utmost 
steadfastness  of  an  unfaltering  purpose.  Only  when  he 
has  come  safely  through  this  ordeal,  and  has  been  tried 
as  by  fire,  will  he  know  himself  as  he  is,  and  the  world  as 
it  is. 

As  with  the  individual  man  so  with  the  nation;  so 
with  mankind. 

Nations  that  have  slowly  grown  through  centuries  of 
poverty  and  relative  obscurity  have  suddenly  found 


FRANKLIN  II.  GIDDINGS,  A.B.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 
Professor  of  Sociology  and  History  of  Civilization,  Columbia  Uni- 
versity 


ENFORCED  PEACE  171 

themselves  important  in  the  world's  affairs.  Face  to 
face  with  obHgations,  in  arrogance  and  overweening  con- 
fidence they  have  rushed  upon  destruction,  or,  measur- 
ing themselves  truly  and  organizing  their  resources 
effectively,  they  have  written  imperishable  lines  upon 
the  scroll  of  history. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  the  whole  world  of  Western 
civilization  awoke  to  the  reahzation  of  achievement  and 
to  a  consciousness  of  power  for  which  no  parallel,  or 
precedent,  or  dream,  had  prepared  the  human  mind  or 
the  moral  forces  of  character.  Through  experimental 
science  a  new  mastery  over  physical  nature  had  been  at- 
tained. Material  wealth,  and  the  enjoyments  which  it 
yields,  so  grew  and  multipUed  that  even  trained 
economists  began  to  speak  Hghtly,  as  of  discredited 
dogmas,  of  the  laws  of  diminishing  return  and  popula- 
tion increase. 

It  was  obvious  that  this  new  power  of  man,  over  the 
conditions  of  material  Hfe,  was  the  power  of  intellect. 
Intellect  not  only  explored  and  discovered;  it  organized, 
directed  and  applied.  To  the  possibiUties  of  recombina- 
tion no  limit  could  be  assigned.  Man  could  recreate  his 
world.  Knowledge  no  less  than  comfort  could  be 
diffused.  The  ancient  evils  of  ignorance  and  of  poverty 
could  be  banished  together. 

With  abundance  possible  for  all,  and  enlightenment 
assured  as  a  universal  condition,  the  strong  need  no 
longer  remorsely  crowd  the  weak  to  the  wall  in  the 
struggle  for  existence.  The  brotherhood  of  man  might 
supersede  warring  states.  We  looked  upon  the  vision 
of  a  limitless  moral  progress. 

Unhappily,  in  making  this  forecast,  we  unconsciously 
buUt  upon  an  unwarranted  assumption,  and  we  forgot 
one  of  the  most  indubitable  generalizations  from  the  ex- 
perience of  the  race.  We  assumed  a  matter-of-course 
relationship  between  reason  and  reasonableness,  and  we 
forgot  that,  although  knowledge  comes,  wisdom  lingers. 


172  ENFORCED  PEACE 

The  assumption  has  been  shattered.  The  civilized 
world  has  not  lost  its  faith  that  moral  progress  is  pos- 
sible but  it  will  not  again  base  its  hopes  upon  the  un- 
tested beUef  that  mankind  necessarily  becomes  better  if 
it  becomes  richer  and  more  comfortable.  It  will  not 
again  so  appallingly  underestimate  the  forces  of  evil  that 
have  yet  to  be  encountered  and  overcome.  Like  the 
strong  and  forward-looking  individual  who  has  suffered 
defeat  but  not  destruction,  it  will  now  resurvey  its  task, 
take  more  careful  stock  of  its  energies  and  its  resources, 
and  go  forward  in  the  full  realization  of  the  magnitude  of 
the  work  in  hand. 

This  prediction  we  are  able  to  make  because  the 
evidence  abounds  that  our  now  disillusioned  world  is  not 
a  discouraged  world.  He  is  a  poor  observer  who  sees  in 
the  European  War  only  the  most  appalling  waste  of  life 
and  treasure  that  history  records.  He  is  pot  a  less  poor 
observer  who  sees  in  it  only  waste  made  worse  by  dis- 
illusion. It  has  been,  and  is,  the  most  tremendous 
stimulus  to  self-examination,  to  resolution,  and  to  de- 
termined effort  that  has  ever  provoked  the  moral  ener- 
gies and  the  intelUgence  of  man  to  fresh  exertion. 

The  self-examination  will  be  thorough.  It  was  the  re- 
morseless Nietzsche  who  proposed  the  revaluation  of  all 
values.  The  reappraisement  has  begun,  and  already  we 
know  that  the  resulting  scale  of  values  will  not  be  what 
Nietzsche  anticipated,  and  what  his  disciples,  the 
philosophers  of  f rightfulness,  have  striven  to  estabhsh. 
In  the  new  appraisal  the  rightfulness  of  means  wiU  rank 
at  least  with  the  desirability  of  ends.  Of  all  criteria  that 
have  from  time  to  time  been  suggested  to  discriminate 
civilization  from  barbarism,  recognition  of  the  moral 
quahty  of  the  means  employed  to  attain  desired  ends  is 
the  most  certain.  And  of  all  the  measures  that  have 
been  used  to  determine  the  extent  of  moral  progress  in 
distinction  from  material  advancement,  none  is  so  pre- 
cise as  the  amoimt  of  behavior  which  punctilliously  re- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  173 

gards  the  procedure  by  which  individuals  and  govern- 
ments attempt  to  attain  their  purposes.  The  masses  of 
men  have  been  slow  to  perceive  these  truths,  always 
clear  to  the  few.  The  war  has  flashed  them  on  a  screen 
upon  which  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  riveted.  The 
maxim  that  the  end  justifies  the  means,  and  the  philos- 
ophy that  might  makes  right,  are  revealed  in  all  their 
moral  nakedness  as  the  ethics  of  barbarism. 

Monstrous  beyond  all  other  discredited  ways  of  at- 
taining ends  desired,  is  aggressive  war.  To  check  the 
resort  of  nations  to  this  means  of  aggrandizement,  and  to 
work  tirelessly  to  make  it  ultimately  impossible  will, 
from  this  day  forth,  be  the  most  serious  task,  not  only  of 
the  ethically-minded  few,  but  of  millions  of  common- 
sensible  citizens  in  every  land,  brought  now  to  realize 
that  no  end  consonant  with  progressive  civilization  can 
justify  original  resort  to  the  devastating  and  morally 
disintegrating  procedures  of  savagery. 

With  the  reappraisal  of  values  in  their  abstract 
quahty  as  right  and  wrong,  we  are  reappraising  them 
also  as  expressions  of  concrete  fact,  of  practical  reaH ties, 
of  working  energies.  We  have  arrived  at  a  truer 
estimate  of  the  tremendous  power  that  inheres  in  the 
surviving  passions,  the  traditional  prejudices,  and  the 
actual  convictions  of  the  masses  of  living  men  in  this 
democratic  age.  The  peace  of  the  world  cannot  be 
estabhshed  by  conventions  alone.  Statutes  and  treaties 
are  powerless  against  lawless  might  or  the  avalanche  of 
wrath.  If  peace  is  to  prevail,  peace  must  abide  in  the 
minds  and  the  hearts  of  men.  It  must  be  a  mastering 
desire.  We  know  that  this  desire  xias  awakened  in  the 
multitude.  To  strengthen  it,  and  to  organize  it,  is  the 
imperatively  important  work  that  calls  for  all  the  edu- 
cational resources  and  the  untiring  effort  of  those  to 
whom  has  been  imparted  the  power  to  inspire  and  to 
direct.  Desire  must  be  fortified  by  thought.  The 
power  of  reason  which  has  given  man  command  over 


174  ENFORCED  PEACE 

material  resources,  must  be  directed  upon  the  mighty 
task  of  making  man  himself  reasonable.  It  is  not  an 
impossible  task.  The  multitude  to-day  is  beginning  to 
think,  and  thought  will  react  upon  behavior. 

One  further  reappraisal  there  will  be;  it  has  already 
begun.  We  shall  revalue  the  means  by  which  we  seek  to 
attain  ends  not  only  according  to  their  quahty  as  right 
or  wrong,  but  also  according  to  their  effectiveness.  In 
this  reappraisal  we  shall  reestimate  the  dreamer  and  his 
dream.  Conscious  progress  begins  in  dreams.  Not 
until  we  have  seen  the  vision  of  better  things  do  we  plan 
and  work  to  make  the  vision  real.  But  dreams  do  not 
come  true  through  dreaming.  We  hve  in  a  universe  of 
material  things  and  forces,  and  our  ideas,  our  aspirations 
are  effective  only  as  they  organize  physical  energies 
and  set  them  at  work  upon  the  task  to  be  done.  We 
have  dreamed  of  world  peace,  but  we  shall  not  get  it  by 
dreaming.  We  shall  get  it  only  by  organizing  and  bring- 
ing to  bear  upon  the  interests  and  the  forces  that  make 
for  war,  an  adequate  physical  force,  backed  by  adequate 
material  resources. 

Herbert  Spencer  in  his  autobiography  tells  us  that 
his  great-grandmother  Spencer  used  to  admonish  her 
grandson,  Herbert's  father,  to  impress  upon  her  grand- 
daughter-in-law,  Catharine,  the  imperative  necessity 
of  looking  ahead  and  making  provision  for  the  future. 
Always  her  parting  words  to  him  were:  "Tell  Kitty 
to  forecast."  Forecasting  has  not  been  a  habit  of 
collective  mankind — least  of  all  of  democracies.  But 
collective  forecasting  has  now  become  imperative.  In 
the  movement  for  pieparedness  in  this  nation  we  see 
the  possibiUty  that  this  prudential  virtue  may  be 
strengthened.  But  if  war  is  to  cease,  there  must  be 
forecasting  in  a  larger  way  than  would  suffice  to  pre- 
pare one  nation  only  for  defense.  There  must  be 
agreeing  action  by  many  nations  collectively  strong 
enough  to  restrain  any  power  that  would  break  the 


A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL.  A.B.,  LL.B.,  LL.D.,  Ph.D. 
President   of   Harvard    University.     Chairman   of   the   Executive 
Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  175 

peace — as  the  single  state  is  strong  enough  to  restrain 
the  criminal  individual,  or  the  forces  of  local  insurrec- 
tion. The  strength  of  the  restraining  group  must  be 
more  than  moral:  it  must  be  the  strength  of  physical 
force.  A  league  to  pass  resolutions,  and  to  offer 
advice,  will  not  avail:  it  must  be  a  league  to  enforce 
peace.  The  preamble  and  the  platform  which  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace,  here  assembled  and  repre- 
sented, has  adopted,  state  the  simple,  obvious  con- 
clusions of  experience.  In  one  way  only  has  the  area 
of  peace  been  widened  as  the  centuries  have  passed. 
The  law-breaker  and  the  war-maker  have  been  restrained 
by  authority  armed  and  employing  force.  History 
offers  us  no  suggestion  of  any  other  possibiUty.  In  a 
federation  of  nations  desiring  peace,  and  adequately 
organized  to  prevent  war,  rests  our  hope  of  the  further 
material  and  moral  progress  of  mankind. 

Dr.  a.  Lawrence  Lowell,  A.B.,  LL.B.,  LL.D., 
PhJD.,  president  of  Harvard  University,  chair- 
man of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  spoke  as  follows: 

A  PLATFORM  UPON  WHICH  THE  WHOLE  WORLD  CAN 
STAND 

The  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is 
essentially  contained  in  its  title,  and  indeed  the  only 
immediate  change  made  by  the  meeting  at  Philadel- 
phia in  the  preliminary  plan  that  had  been  proposed, 
was  a  change  in  the  title,  by  inserting  the  word  "en- 
force." This  change  was  important  because  it  drew 
attention  to  the  true  significance  of  the  plan;  because 
it  alienated  those  who  were  really  opposed  to  the  prin- 
ciples advocated  by  the  League;  and  because  it  at- 
tracted many  men  who  saw  that  these  principles  were 
no   mere  nebulous  abstraction,   but  something  con- 


176  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Crete  which  it  might  not  be  impossible  for  the  nations 
of  the  world  to  approve,  adopt,  and  put  into  operation. 
I  shall,  therefore,  dwell  not  on  the  program,  for  it  has 
been  discussed  fully  during  the  last  two  days,  but  on 
the  title  of  the  League. 

The  title  contains  three  prmcipal  words,  which  can 
best  be  taken  up  in  reverse  order.  The  last  of  these 
words  is  Peace,  a  thing  almost  all  men  profess  to  desire; 
and  after  the  calamities  we  have  seen  casting  their 
dark  shadow  over  Europe  during  the  last  two  years, 
it  is  needless  to  argue  here  the  value  of  peace  on  earth 
and  good  wiU  toward  men. 

The  advocates  of  the  League  make  no  claim  that 
it  is  possible  to  maintain  peace  now  and  forever — 
to  aboHsh  all  future  wars.  Such  a  condition  must 
for  a  long  time  be  beyond  the  skill  of  man  to  attain. 
But  they  do  seek  to  establish  a  condition  in  which 
no  wars  shall  be  undertaken  save,  such  as  are,  humanly 
speaking,  inevitable;  in  which  a  nation  shall  not  resort  to 
war  until  every  other  means  of  averting  a  conflict  has 
been  exhausted — until  efforts  to  obtain  justice  by 
judicial  methods  have  failed.  Arbitration,  or  sub- 
mission to  judicial  decision,  has  already  been  applied, 
largely  to  the  questions  about  which  governments 
do  not  want  to  go  to  war,  and  much  has  been  done 
thereby  to  remove  the  lesser  causes  of  friction,  misunder- 
standing, and  ill  will  among  nations.  But  we  beHeve 
that  it  is  possible  to  go  farther  and  agree  that  no  nation 
shall  take  up  arms  against  another  over  any  contro- 
versy, however  much  the  question  may  affect  its 
interests  or  touch  its  feelings  or  its  honor,  until  it  has 
brought,  or  offered  to  bring,  the  matter  before 
some  international  body,  charged  with  the  duty  of 
rendering  a  judgment  or  suggesting  an  adjustment. 

Nations  would  hardly  be  willing  to  bind  themselves 
to  submit  to  a  tribunal  all  questions  and  abide  by  the 
result.     They  may  not  have  implicit  confidence  that 


ENFORCED  PEACE  177 

the  question  will  be  fairly  decided,  but  they  can  surely 
have  confidence  that  it  will  be  fairly  heard — that  each 
side  will  be  given  a  full  opportunity  to  state  its  case  and 
pubUsh  its  evidence  and  its  argument;  and  this  every 
nation  ought  to  be  wiUing  to  do.  Surely  governments 
cannot  take  the  ground  that  one  of  their  sacred  rights 
is  that  of  going  to  war  without  giving  any  reasons 
therefor.  In  the  words  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, "A  decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of  man- 
kind requires  that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which 
impel  them." 

In  preventing  war  a  pubhc  hearing  is  not  less  im- 
portant than  a  judgment,  because  it  makes  for  delay 
before  men's  minds  are  inflamed  by  war;  and  thereby 
gives  an  opportunity  for  pubUc  opinion  in  the  world  to 
develop,  for  other  nations  to  intercede,  and  above  all 
for  the  people  of  the  countries  involved  to  form  and 
express  their  views  in  a  way  that  is  wholly  impossible 
after  war  has  once  broken  out.  Governments  ought 
not  to  be  able  to  drag  their  people  into  a  terrific  struggle, 
where  men  must  fight  and  not  think,  without  giving 
them  a  chance  to  consider  the  cause  or  the  wisdom  of 
the  war.  No  outside  country  has  any  right  to  question 
the  form  of  government  that  a  nation  may  prefer;  but 
tlie  world  has  a  right  to  demand  that  a  people  shall 
not  go  to  war  without  knowing  why  and  being  con- 
vinced of  the  necessity;  and  yet  as  the  world  is  organ- 
ized to-day  a  government  can  often  refuse  to  delay,  or 
allow  the  time  for  reflection. 

The  second  word  in  the  title  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  is  "Enforce,"  and  the  essential  idea  in  the 
proposal  is  that  these  principles  shall  be  enforced. 
Mr.  Root  has  pointed  out  that  international  rights  and 
duties  have  hitherto  been  treated  like  private  rights 
and  duties  in  civil  society,  as  matters  affecting  only 
the  parties  thereto;  whereas  many  international  obliga- 
tions reaUy  touch  the  whole  world,  and  not  merely 


178  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  nations  directly  affected,  so  that  their  violation, 
like  the  corresponding  acts  of  individuals,  may  be  re- 
garded as  offenses  against  a  criminal  law  of  which  the 
pubUc  at  large  is  the  guardian.  A  breach  of  the  world's 
peace,  Uke  a  breach  of  domestic  peace,  is  an  offense 
against  public  order  which  the  public  ought  to  have 
some  right  to  prevent.  Nations  that  go  to  war  break 
the  peace  of  the  world,  and  the  world  has  at  least  a 
right  to  insist  on  knowing  the  reason  for  the  war.  It 
has  a  right  to  go  farther  and  demand  that  peace  shall 
not  be  broken  until  an  opportunity  has  been  given  to 
ascertain  where  justice  lies;  to  try  mediation  and 
arbitration;  and  to  consider  calmly  whether  or  not  the 
matter  at  issue  requires  the  sacrifice  of  war. 

In  saying  that  the  world  has  a  right  to  insist  upon 
this,  we  mean  that  it  is  justified  in  compelling  nations 
to  go  to  arbitration  and  state  their  case  before  they 
take  up  arms.  But  in  order  that  the  compulsion  may 
be  effective,  the  method  of  enforcement  must  be  cer- 
tain, and  sufficient  for  the  purpose.  In  the  terrible 
face  of  war  there  is  no  use  in  shaking  the  rattle  of  an 
unarmed  watchman  or  in  convening  councils  that  talk 
and  will  not  act.  The  object  is  not  to  consult  about 
the  punishment  of  an  offender,  but  to  prepare  a  de- 
terrent that  will  prevent  the  offense.  The  delinquent 
who  contemplates  a  breach  of  the  peace,  without  an 
offer  to  state  the  case  before  an  international  tribunal, 
must  know  that  retribution  will  be  certain,  instant,  and 
irresistible.  Such  a  deterrent  can  be  provided  only  if 
it  is  known  that  the  great  nations  will  use  forthwith  all 
their  powers,  moral,  economic,  and  military,  to  enforce 
the  principle  of  no  war  before  arbitration.  Nothing 
less  will  be  effective,  and  such  a  doom  no  nation  would 
dare  to  face. 

The  remaining  word  in  the  title  is  "League."  No 
single  country  can  enforce  a  Pax  Romana  on  the  modern 
world;  to  attempt  it  would  be  to  make  itself  a  Don 


ENFORCED  PEACE  179 

Quixote  in  search  of  perilous  adventures,  to  suffer 
defeat  and  become  a  laughing  stock.  It  can  be  under- 
taken only  by  a  league  of  nations  strong  enough  and 
trustworthy  enough  to  overawe  any  single  state  or 
combination  of  states  that  might  venture  to  disregard 
its  law  of  peace  and  war.  Whether  such  a  league  can 
be  formed  or  not,  we  do  not  know.  The  question 
bristles  with  difficulties  for  statesmen  and  international 
lawyers,  which  there  is  no  use  in  attempting  to  minimize 
and  which  require  learning,  skill,  patience,  and  good 
will  to  solve.  But  one  thing  we  do  know — that  such 
a  league  is  not  possible  unless  our  country  is  willing 
to  join  it;  nay,  more,  unless  we  take  a  prominent 
part  in  its  formation. 

Washington  warned  us  to  avoid  entangling  alli- 
ances with  foreign  powers,  and  the  advice  was  good 
in  his  day,  when  we  held  an  isolated  position  in  the 
world,  when  wind  was  the  only  means  of  crossing 
the  water,  when  steam  and  electricity  had  not  shrunk 
the  earth  to  its  present  size.  Yet  fifteen  years  after 
the  Farewell  Address  we  were  at  war  with  England,  and 
hardly  more  than  ten  years  later  we  had  announced 
the  bold  policy  of  protecting  aU  the  independent  states 
of  North  and  South  America  from  aggression  by  Euro- 
pean Powers.  So  far  as  the  outside  world  is  concerned, 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  spread  a  sort  of  Pax  Americana 
over  the  two  western  continents;  and  we  have  main- 
tained it  for  nearly  a  century,  at  one  time  in  Mexico 
in  the  face  of  a  great  and  gallant  martial  nation.  To- 
day we  cannot  retain  the  old  isolation  if  we  would. 
We  are  too  populous,  too  prosperous,  too  powerful, 
and  the  world  has  become  too  small,  its  seas  too  nar- 
row, its  continents  too  close  together.  We  are  faced 
by  the  alternatives  of  standing  aloof  from  the  rest  of 
the  world  if  we  can,  defending  ourselves  and  working 
out  our  destiny  by  the  strength  of  our  own  arm  if  we 
must,  a  stranger  and  perchance  an  IshmaeUte  among 


i8o  ENFORCED  PEACE 

the  nations;  or  of  taking  our  part,  if  we  may,  in  shaping 
with  others  the  progress  of  mankind  and  helping  to 
bring  order  and  peace  over  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea. 

Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler,  A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D., 
LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  L.H.D.,  President  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.,  spoke  as  follows: 

ENFORCING  THE   RECOGNITION   OF  JUSTICE 

If  anything  can  be  done  to  abate  the  chances  of 
war,  it  must  be  done  in  the  general  field  of  the  pro- 
gram sketched  out  for  this  League.  So  overwhelming, 
indeed,  is  the  assent  in  the  marts  of  opinion,  as  to  stir 
a  distrust  that  the  sketch  is  a  curtain  dropped  at  the 
line  where  the  troubles  begin.  In  all  human  affairs 
we  are  justified  by  experience  in  leveling  suspicion 
against  any  scheme  which  offers  simplicity  and  beams 
upon  us  with  an  easy,  smihng  face.  It  is  also  true, 
however,  in  all  human  affairs  that  to  secure  coopera- 
tion among  great  masses  of  humans  the  first  requisite 
is  the  provision  of  a  vast  and  simple  sweep  of  level 
standing-ground.  We  must  presume  that  the  relative 
bareness  of  the  scheme  before  us  represents  a  fair  effort 
to  bring  together  as  a  basis  of  organization,  the  maximum 
of  that  in  which  we  can  presumably  agree  and  the 
minimum  of  that  concerning  which  we  are  likely  to 
disagree. 

Even  as  it  is,  our  optimism  may  have  led  us  too  far  in 
tempting  us  to  use  the  word  peace.  The  associations 
which  come  to  us  from  the  hopeless  and  light- winged  use 
of  that  word  in  organization,  movements,  and  orations 
warn  us  that  what  we  perhaps  meant  to  say  was:  League 
io  Enforce  the  Recognition  of  Justice.  It  is  a  delusion 
and  a  snare  to  speak  or  think  of  peace  as  a  normal 
•status  of  human  affairs,  to  which  we  must  seek  return. 


BENJAMIN  roE  WHEELER 
A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  L.H.D. 
President  of  the  University  of  California 


ENFORCED  PEACE  i8i 

It  is  a  delusion  to  think  out  our  problem  in  that  order — ■ 
a  delusion  of  the  same  cast  as  the  old-time  argument 
from  "the  state  of  nature,"  This  argument  from 
the  state  of  nature  finds  no  standing  in  anthropology  nor 
for  that  matter  in  zoology.  Man  is  by  anthropology 
and  zoology  a  homicidal  mammal.  He  kills  and  often 
eats  his  enemy.  The  normal  status  of  human  affairs  in- 
volves competition,  contention,  strife.  With  that  he 
starts;  from  that  he  must  seek  to  advance.  Advance 
comes  only  by  the  intrusion  of  time  and  wider  con- 
sideration in  the  place  of  impulse  and  inconsiderate 
violence.  Then  the  reasonableness  begotten  of  time 
may  strike  the  balance  we  call  justice.  For  the  recog- 
nition of  justice  we  must  have  the  check  of  time,  and  for 
time  we  must  have,  so  far  as  we  know  the  mood  of 
human  affairs,  the  check  of  power.  What  we  need  to 
find  is  some  form  of  expressible  innate  power  in  human 
society  which  will  induce  the  recognition  of  justice. 

In  seeking  such  a  form  of  power  and  the  mechanism 
for  its  expression  we  find  ourselves  engaged  in  a  strange 
new  quest.  Rising  to  face  us  at  every  turn  stand  bristling 
the  barriers  of  that  new  nationalism  which  until  to-day 
we  had  esteemed  as  the  protecting  walls  of  national 
liberty  and  the  chief  guarantee  of  human  freedom — and 
namely,  as  against  all  arbitrary  assignments  to  aHen 
dominion  and  government  from  without.  These  pro- 
tecting walls  are  built  out  of  unity  of  language,  the  in- 
heritance of  common  traditions,  the  possession  of  com- 
mon goods  in  folklore,  poetry,  festivals  and  dance,  cos- 
tume and  manners,  the  memories  of  great  names  and 
deeds,  a  common  attachment  to  mountain  and  river, 
and  the  romance  of  places,  a  high  patriotism  mingled 
with  prejudice  and  a  vehement  chauvinism;  and  of  late 
years,  with  accelerating  zeal,  these  walls  have  been 
building  themselves  ever  higher  through  the  artificial 
cultivation  by  organized  effort  of  national  songs  and 
reverence  of  the  flag  and  through  artificial  revival  of 


i82  ENFORCED  PEACE 

vanishing  tongues,  costumes,  festivals,  traditions 
coupled  with  a  concurrent  antipathy  and  outrooting 
zeal  toward  various  forms  of  foreign  usage  and  produc- 
tion. History  as  well  as  poetry  have  been  used  to  stir 
the  flame  upon  the  altars  of  national  pride. 

Lord  Bryce  discussed  this  subject  in  his  remarkable 
address  before  the  University  of  London  on  February 
22, 1915,  and  I  quote  his  words:  "Men's  souls  are  raised 
by  the  recollection  of  great  deeds  done  by  their  fore- 
fathers. But  the  study  of  the  past  has  its  dangers 
when  it  makes  men  transfer  past  claims  and  past 
hatreds  to  the  present.  .  .  .  The  learned  men  and 
the  Hterary  men,  often  themselves  intoxicated  by  their 
own  enthusiasm,  never  put  their  books  to  a  worse  use 
than  when  they  filled  each  people  with  a  conceit  of  its 
own  super-eminent  gifts  and  merits." 

The  development  of  this  new  nationahsm  is  a  pecuHar 
product  of  the  nineteenth  century  having  its  roots  in  the 
American  and  French  Revolutions.  The  completest 
type  of  new  nationahty  is  found  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Greece,  which  bases  its  right  to  be  in  the  inheritance  of 
tongue  and  traditions  and  glorious  memories  from  the 
great  Greece  of  antiquity.  But  on  every  hand  in 
Europe  these  nationaHties-by-natural-right  are  forcing 
their  colors  through  in  disregard  of  the  boundaries  in  the 
old  political  map.  Poland  insists  on  asserting  itself 
against  the  triple  division.  Bohemia  persists  in  the  use 
of  its  own  language  for  its  schools  and  universities  and  in 
the  maintenance  of  every  other  mark  of  its  own  in- 
dividuality. So  the  Magyars  and  the  Serbs  and  the 
Roumanians  and  the  Bulgars.  Norway  differentiates 
itself  from  Swedes  and  Danes,  even  to  a  shuffling  off  of 
the  Danish  standard  of  the  written  language.  Italy 
sets  everything  at  stake  in  behalf  of  the  Italia  irredenta. 
Ireland  will  not  be  obhterated. 

This  new  nationalism,  shaped  in  the  high  sentiments 
of  loyalty  and  patriotism,  has  undoubtedly  brought  with 


FRANK  S.  STREETER.  LL.D. 
Member  Executive  Committee,  League  to  Enforce  Peace 


ENFORCED  PEACE  183 

it  into  the  world  a  new  and  uplifting  passion,  a  new 
object  of  sacrifice  and  service,  a  new  type  of  the  religion 
of  the  state.  But  there  is  reason  to  fear,  and  we  may 
not  be  blind  thereto,  that  it  has  also  brought  with  it  the 
possibility  of  certain  grave  perils,  among  which  are  two: 
a  slackened  allegiance  to  the  cause  of  humanity  at  large, 
and  a  magnified  sentiment  of  national  pride,  involving 
wounded  honor  and  satisfaction  bv  the  oldtime  route  of 
the  duel. 

In  seeking  the  form  of  power  which  shall  set  check 
upon  war,  we  must  utiUze  that  very  spirit  of  nationalism 
which  through  unguarded  assertion  of  national  claims 
has  involved  us  in  world  peril. 

If,  in  the  hysterical  haste  of  those  last  sad  days  of 
July,  1914,  when  speed  begat  speed  in  accelerating  ratio, 
some  power  could  have  arisen  to  set  brakes  by  which 
speed  could  have  automatically  begotten  delay,  there 
would  have  been  no  war  at  the  time.  But  the  time- 
factor  involved  the  occasion,  not  the  cause  of  the  war. 
The  cause  was  the  earthquake  fault  running  from 
Central  Europe  through  the  Balkans  and  on,  by  the 
southeasterly  trade  route  on  the  line  of  the  Bagdad  rail- 
way, toward  the  Persian  Gulf.  It  ran  in  Asia  parallel 
to  the  Suez  route  of  England  and  across  the  face  of  the 
Russian  advance,  and  in  Europe,  it  ran  through  the 
crust  of  the  Balkans  weakened  by  the  recent  disruptions 
of  the  newly  emerging  nationalities.  Another  great 
fault-hne  runs  somewhere,  north  and  south,  through  the 
bed  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  And  there  are  others:  but  it 
is  first  and  foremost  in  reference  to  these  two,  and  in 
terms  of  these  two,  that  our  immediate  effort  must  be 
shapen.  To  undertake  the  automatic  and  unerring 
production  of  peace — all  kinds  of  peace  at  all  times  and 
everywhere — is  an  inspiration  of  foUy. 

Frank  S.  Streeter,  LL.D.,  of  Concord,  N.  H., 
a  member  of  the  original   National   Provisional 


i84  ENFORCED  PEACE 

Committee  calling  the  Philadelphia  Conference,  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  at  that 
Conference,  and  a  member  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  League  from  its  organization, 
told  of  a  variation  on  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  and  its  results  in  his  state  as  follows: 

THE  NEW  HAMPSHIRE  WAY 

I  come  here  to  make  a  report  of  a  modified  plan  of 
organization  which  we  found  it  necessary  to  adopt  in 
New  Hampshire.  We  have  there  created  an  organiza- 
tion which  combines  in  its  purposes  the  two  ideas  of 
national  defense  and  the  proposals  of  this  League  to 
Enforce  Peace.  I  want  to  read  the  objects  as  stated  in 
our  constitution. 

"First.  To  advocate  and  to  aid  in  bringing  about 
the  increase  of  the  naval  and  miUtary  strength  of 
the  United  States  so  that  this  nation  may  always  be 
prepared  and  able  to  repel  invasions,  to  protect  its 
territory,  its  people,  and  its  national  honor. 

"Second.  To  advocate  and  urge  that  the 
United  States  join  a  league  of  nations  binding  the 
signatories  to  the  definite  proposals  adopted  at  In- 
dependence Hall,  June  17,  191 5,  by  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace." 

And  here  follows  in  the  constitution  the  four  definite 
proposals  of  the  League.  Friends  have  asked  me  to  ex- 
plain why  in  New  Hampshire  this  plan  of  organization 
was  adopted.     Briefly  it  was  this: 

Soon  after  the  Independence  Hall  proposals,  in  which 
many  of  us  participated,  but  before  they  had  taken  root 
in  New  Hampshire,  there  was  organized  a  New  Hamp- 
shire Defense  League,  and  many  of  our  prominent 
citizens  heartily  supported  it.  Being  believers  in  the 
purposes  of  that  League,  many  of  us  did  not  hesitate  to 
join  it,  and  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Executive  Com- 


ENFORCED  PEACE  185 

mittee  of  this  organization  in  New  York  the  question 
was  submitted  whether  the  same  man  at  the  same  time 
could  consistently  be  an  active  member  of  both  organiza- 
tions. The  Executive  Committee  said  yes,  and  this  con- 
clusion was  published  the  next  morning  under  the 
authority  of  the  committee.  When  we  came  to  organize 
the  branch  of  this  League  in  New  Hampshire  it  was 
speedily  found  that  the  great  majority  of  our  citizens 
desired  not  only  to  lend  encouragement  to  the  In- 
dependence Hall  proposals,  but  also  earnestly  beheved 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  Government  without  delay 
to  provide  for  reasonable  and  adequate  national  defense. 
In  this  situation,  and  because  demanded  by  the  public 
opinion  of  my  state,  we  created  this  new  organization  to 
promote  both  purposes.  An  efiFective  organization  was 
created,  and  within  the  last  two  weeks  there  have  been 
enrolled  somewhere  between  seven  and  eight  hundred 
members,  and  some  of  our  people  are  very  enthusiastic 
with  reference  to  the  interest  that  is  being  aroused. 

The  reason  for  forming  this  New  Hampshire  organiza- 
tion is  because  our  people  desire  not  only  to  support 
the  principles  of  this  great  movement,  looking  to- 
ward the  estabHshment  and  preservation  of  inter- 
national peace,  by  force  if  necessary,  but  also  that  this 
nation  should  put  itself  in  readiness  to  defend  itself.  It 
is  their  desire  by  all  honorable  means  to  avoid  war,  but 
they  shrink  from  the  humiliation  of  our  present  helpless- 
ness. They  are  not  hunting  for  trouble,  but  they  do  not 
want  to  be  obUged  to  run  if  trouble  comes.  They  em- 
phatically reject  the  doctrine  that  a  deliberate  prepara- 
tion to  protect  ourselves  if  war  is  forced  upon  us  is 
essentially  a  preparation  for  our  forcing  war  on  others. 
They  believe  that  reasonable  and  adequate  preparation 
to  defend  ourselves,  by  force,  is  the  first  requisite  to  en- 
able this  country  either  to  lead  other  nations  or  to  co- 
operate efficiently  with  other  nations  in  defending  the 
peace  of  the  world  by  force.     In  an  international  league 


i86  ENFORCED  PEACE 

created  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world,  by  force  if 
necessary — the  supreme  object  for  which  this  great 
organization  was  created — a  member  nation,  the  United 
States  for  illustration,  which  is  known  to  be  powerless  to 
defend  its  own  territory,  its  own  citizens,  and  its  own 
national  honor,  would  have  very  Httle  influence  or 
standing. 

Therefore,  logically,  if  the  United  States  hopes  to  take 
any  leadership  or  exert  any  substantial  influence  as  a 
member  of  a  league  of  nations  to  enforce  peace,  its 
ability  to  defend  itself  by  force  must  be  recognized  by 
the  other  members  of  such  a  league.  Now,  to  show 
where  we  stand,  I  will  read  two  brief  sentences,  or  para- 
graphs, from  our  address  to  the  patriotic  citizens  of  New 
Hampshire,  recently  sent  out. 

"Every  New  Hampshire  citizen  who  loves  his 
country,  loves  peace,  abhors  war,  and  believes  that 
the  United  States  should  take  the  proper  steps  to 
safeguard  its  honor,  dignity,  integrity,  and  the  lives 
of  its  citizens  by  reasonable  but  adequate  prepara- 
tion, is  invited  to  become  a  member  of  this  organi- 
zation. 

"  Every  New  Hampshire  man  who  desires  to  pre- 
vent the  recurrence  of  war,  and  who  believes  that 
the  United  States  should  join  with  other  civilized 
nations  in  an  effort  to  prevent  further  wars,  and 
to  take  all  possible  steps  for  the  enforcement  of 
international  peace,  ought  to  enroll  himself,  and 
thereby  give  his  individual  influence,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, for  the  support  of  this  vital  and  fundamental 
principle." 

This  organization  was  adopted  for  New  Hampshire,, 
because  it  was  there  demanded  by  public  opinion. 
This  plan  may  not  be  valuable  or  useful  in  any  other 
state.  Such  a  course  is  not  suggested.  It  was  put  into 
effect  there  because  our  New  Hampshire  citizens  desire 
to  contribute  their  influence  not  only  to  promote  the 


ENFORCED  PEACE  187 

establishment  of  international  peace  but  also  to  provide 
for  oxir  national  defense. 

Mr.  Streeter's  brief  speech,  followed  a  little  later 
by  a  question  propounded  by  Miss  Mary  Winsor, 
representing  the  Woman's  Peace  Party  of  Penn- 
sylvania, afforded  President  Taft  an  opportunity 
to  clear  up  any  doubts  that  may  have  lingered  in 
the  minds  of  any  one  regarding  the  policy  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace.     Mr.  Taft  said: 

"We  have  attempted  in  this  meeting  to  lay  down 
with  all  the  emphasis  possible  the  fact  that  what  we 
are  here  for  is  to  promote  four  proposals  and  no  more. 
We  are  not  here  to  discuss  anything  else,  and  because 
they  have  seen  fit  in  New  Hampshire  to  invite  others 
to  help  finance  a  movement  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  We  wish  to  emphasize  this  fact.  It  is  not 
the  intention  of  the  Executive  Committee  to  go  into 
any  issue  except  those  that  are  involved  in  the  four 
proposals  of  the  League." 

Dr.  Nehemiah  Boynton,  A.B.,  D.D.,  pastor 
of  Clinton  Avenue  Congregational  Church,  Brook- 
lyn, discussed  the  ideal  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  saying  in  part: 

AN  IDEAL   WITH  LIMITATIONS 

We,  as  ideahsts,  are  absolutely  frank  with  the  world 
concerning  our  purposes  and  attitudes.  We  desire 
no  one  to  come  into  fellowship  with  us  under  any  im- 
pression which  may  be  by  any  manner  of  means  ill- 
conceived.  We  say  very  frankly  that  when  the  court 
fails,  and  concihation  fails,  with  the  very  greatest 
regret  but  with  equally  great  decision,  we  will  resort 


1 88  ENFORCED  PEACE 

to  force,  in  order  to  secure  those  larger  rights  of  peace 
for  the  world  in  which  we  fundamentally  believe. 

But  while  we  say  that,  fairly  and  squarely,  we  want 
people  to  understand  that  that  is  only  the  incidental 
part  of  our  propaganda:  The  essential  of  it  is  faith — 
faith  in  humanity,  faith  in  the  soul  of  the  American 
people,  faith  in  our  purposes  and  in  our  ability  to  carry 
the  ideal  for  which  we  stand  to  a  favorable,  and  one 
day  a  successful,  conclusion. 

We  are  not  ashamed  to  announce  to  the  world, 
either,  that  we  limit  our  ideals.  We  put  a  limitation 
upon  our  effort  in  order  that  we  may  send  our  ideal  on 
its  certain  itinerary  through  the  various  highways  of 
travel.  We  believe  that  a  limited  ideal  is  necessary 
for  the  common  peace.  But  while  we  thus  limit  our 
ideal,  we  have  the  unHmited  vision  in  the  morning 
hour  of  this  splendid  propaganda  in  the  interest,  of  a 
world  peace.  The  vision  is  being  caught  wonderfully 
by  our  men  of  affairs.  There  are  multitudes  of  think- 
ing people  in  our  country  who  have  been  waiting  for 
just  such  a  cause  as  this  to  catch  the  imagination  and 
to  inspire  the  generosity  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
people  in  our  country  who  to-day  are  sharing  such 
notable  financial  experiences  that  except  something 
comes  to  challenge  their  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  it  will 
be  with  increasing  difficulty  that  they  retain  the  larger 
proofs  of  their  manhood. 

This  thing  is  going  to  be  pushed  with  wisdom,  with 
character,  with  money,  with  brains,  with  sacrifice,  with 
the  larger  patriotism,  until  the  international  idea  which 
it  represents  shall  become  so  generally  accepted  that 
the  day  may  dawn  not  too  far  distant,  please  God, 
when  the  horrors  of  war  shall  be  things  of  the  past,  and 
the  widening  opportunities  of  peace  shall  be  the  provi- 
sion for  the  sons  and  daughters  of  men. 


APPENDIX  A 
PROPOSALS 

We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  for  the  United 
States  to  join  a  league  of  nations  binding  the 
signatories  to  the  following: 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between 
the  signatory  powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation, 
shall,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties,  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judg- 
ment, both  upon  the  merits  and  upon  any  issue  as 
to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between  the 
signatories  and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing, 
consideration,  and  recommendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use 
forthwith  both  their  economic  and  military  forces- 
against  any  one  of  their  number  that  goes  to  war,  or 
commits  acts  of  hostility  against  another  of  the 
signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be  sub- 
mitted as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

The  following  interpretation  of  Article  Three  has  been 
authorized  by  the  Executive  Committee: 

"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use,  forthwith, 
their  economic  forces  against  any  of  their  number  that 


I90  APPENDIX 

refuses  to  submit  any  question  which  arises  to  an  inter- 
national judicial  tribunal  or  council  of  conciliation 
before  issuing  an  ultimatum  or  threatening  war.  They 
shall  follow  this  by  the  joint  use  of  their  miHtary  forces 
against  that  nation  if  it  actually  proceeds  to  make 
war  or  invades  another's  territory." 

Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  pow- 
ers shall  be  held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate 
and  codify  rules  of  international  law,  which,  unless 
some  signatory  shall  signify  its  dissent  within  a 
stated  period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Judicial  Tribunal  mentioned  in  Article 
One. 


APPENDIX  B 
OFFICERS  AND  ORGANIZATION 

President 
WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 


Vice-President 
ALTON  B.  PARKER 


Honorary  Vice-Presidents 


^  Lyman  Abbott.  N.  Y. 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Va. 

Mrs.    Fannie    Fern    Andrews, 
Mass. 

Bernard  N.  Baker,  Md. 
.Alexander  Graham  Bell,  D.  C. 
'Victor  L.  Berger,  Wis. 

Ri;dolph    Blankenburg,    Penn. 

Miss  Mabel  T.  Boardman,  D.  C. 

Edward  Bok,  Penn. 

Theodore  D.  Bratton,  Miss. 

Clifton  R.  Breckenridge,  Ark. 

Arthur  J.  Brown,  N.  Y. 

Charles  R.  Brown,  Conn. 

Edward  Osgood  Brown,  III. 

J.  Stewart  Bryan,  Va. 

Miss  Mary  A.  Burnham,  Penn. 

Thkodore  E.  Burton,  O. 

John  Cadwalader,  Penn. 

Francis  E.  Clark,  Mass. 

Edward  Cummings,  Mass. 

Albert  B.  Cummins,  Ia. 

R.  Fulton  Cutting,  N.  Y. 

Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  III. 

S.  C.  Eastman,  N.  H. 

Woodbridge  N.  Ferris,  Mich. 

John  H.  Finley,  N.  Y. 

Mrs.  J.  Malcolm  Forbes,  Mass. 

John  Franklin  Fort,  N.  J. 

Wm.  Dudley  Foulke,  Ind. 

David  R.  Francis,  Mo. 

Thomas  F.  Gailor,  Tenn. 
\  James,   Cardinal   Gibbons,   Md. 
^  Washington  Gladden,  O. 

George  Gray,  Del. 

Mrs.  Borden  Harriman,  D.  C. 

Myron  T.  Herrick,  O. 

George  C.  Holt,  N.  Y. 

William  B.  Rowland,  N.  Y. 

Charles  E.  Jefferson,  N.  Y. 


J.  R.  Kenly,  N.  C. 
J.  H.  KiRKLAND,  Tenn. 
George  H.  Lorimer,  Penn. 
Edgar  Odell  Lovett,  Tex. 
Samuel  W.  McCall,  Mass. 
Francis  J.  McConnell,  Col. 
Samuel  B.  McCormick,  Penn. 
James  B.  McCreary,  Ky. 
Miss  Kate  M.  McLane,  Md. 
Martin  B.  Madden,  III. 
Wm.  Hodges  Mann,  Va. 
Shailer  Matthews,  III. 
Peter  W.  Meldrin,  Ga. 
Victor  H.  Metcalf,  Cal. 
Anson  Mills,  D.  C. 
John  Mitchell,  N.  Y. 
Mrs.  John  J.  Mitchell,  III. 
Mrs.  Philip  North  Moore,  Mo. 
N  Richard  Olney,  Mass. 
LeRoy  Percy,  Miss. 
Lawrencc  C.  Phipps,  Col. 
George  A.  P»limpton,  N.  Y. 
George  H.  Prouty,  Vt. 
Francis  Rawle,  Penn. 
William  T.  Russell,  D.  C. 
Jacob  H.  Schiff,  N.  Y. 
j.  g.  schmidlapp,  o. 
Isaac  N.  Seligman,  N.  Y. 
John  C.  Shaffer,  III. 
Wm.  F.  Slocum,  Col. 
Daniel  Smiley,  N.  Y. 
John  A.  Stewart,  N.  Y. 
Frederic  H.  Strawbridge,  Penn. 
Miss  M.  Carey  Thomas,  Penn. 
Henry  St.  George  Tucker,  Va. 
Charles  R.  VanHise,  Wis. 
Edwin  Warfield,  Md. 
Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler,  Cal. 
Harry  A.  Wheeler,  III. 
Andrew  D.  White,  N.  Y. 


191 


192  APPENDIX 

William  Allen  White,  Kan.  Oliver  Wilson,  III. 

George  Grafton  Wilson,  Mass.  Stephen  S.  Wise,  N.  Y. 

Henry  Lane  Wilson,  Ind.  Miss  Mary  E.  Woolley,  Mass. 

Luther  B.  Wilson,  N.  Y.  Theoixjre  S.  Woolsey,  Conn. 

Secretary 

William  H.  Short 

Treasurer 
Herbert  S.  Houston 

Assistant  Secretary-Treasurer 
Horace  R.  Baker 

Director  Field  Work 
C.  C.  Michener 

News  Secretary 
Charles  Millington 

Editorial  Secretary 
Charles  Frederick  Carter 

Executive  Committee 
A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  Chairman 

Edward  A.  Filene      ) 

Hamilton  Holt  V     Vice-Chairmen 

Theodore  Marburg   ) 

Charles  H.  Brough  Anson  Mills 

John  Bates  Clark  Arthur  E.  Morgan 

Charles  Stewart  Davison  LaVerne  W.  Noyes 

Henry  S.  Drinker  LeRoy  Percy 

Samuel  J.  Elder  Leo  S.  Rowe 

John  B.  Finley  W.  L.  Saunders 

Glenn  Frank  Finley  J.  Shepard 

Edward  W.  Frost  William  H.  Short 

W.  W.  Fry  Bolton  Smith 

Philip  H.  Gadsden  Oscar  S.  Straus 

John  Hays  Hammond  Frank  S.  Streeter 

John  Grier  Hibben  Thomas  Taggart 

Herbert  S.  Houston  William  H.  Wadhams 

Harold  J.  Howland  Charles  S.  Ward 

Darwin  P.  Kingsley  Thomas  Raeburn  White 

Frederick  Lynch  Talcott  Williams 

William  Howard  Taft,  Ex-Officio 
Alton  B.  Parker,  Ex-Officio 


National  Committee 

Anderson,  John  C Alabama 

Anderson,  Larz District  of  Columbia 

Ansel.  Martin  F South  Carolina 


APPENDIX  193 


Atkinson,  Harry  M Georgia 

Ballinger,  Richard  A Washington 

Beck,  James  M New  York 

Bi-AKESLEE,  George  H Massachusetts 

Bowie,  Sydney  J Alabama 

BoYNTON,  Nehemiah New  York 

Brewster,  Chauncey  B Connecticut 

Burbank,  Luther California 

Burch,  Charles  N Tennessee 

Burton,  Marion  L Massachusetts 

Butler,  Joseph  G.,  Jr Ohio 

Capper,  Arthur Kansas 

Chittenden,  Hiram  M Washington 

Churchill,  Winston Vermont 

CoLViN,  H.  M Arizona 

Cowles,  William  H Washin^jton 

Cowling,  Donald Minnesota 

Crumpacker,  Edgar  D Indiana 

Cutler,  John  C Utah 

Darlington,  James  Henry Pennsylvania 

Dennis.  William  C District  of  Columbia 

Dering,  Charles  L Illinois 

DiLLARD,  James  H Virginia 

Dodge,  Clarence  P Colorado 

Driscoll,  Michael  E New  York 

Eaton,  Edward  Dwight Wisconsin 

Eberhart,  Adolph  O Minnesota 

Farnam,  Henry  W Connecticut 

Faunce,  W.  H.  P Rhode  Island 

Fishback,  Charles  F Illinois 

Fisher,  Irving  Connecticut 

Frissell,  Hollis  B Virginia 

Gage,  Lyman  J California 

Garfield,  Harry  A Massachusetts 

Goodrich,  Casper  F Connecticut 

Grosvenor,  Charles  H Ohio 

Hammond,  Wm.  R Georgia 

Hanly,  J.  Frank Indianapolis 

Hanna,  Louis  Benj North  Dakota 

Hart,  W.  O Louisiana 

Hedges,  Job  E New  York 

Henderson,  C.  Hanford New  Hampshire 

Henry,  Bayard Pennsylvania 

Herring,  Hubert  C Massachusetts 

Higginson,  Henry  L Massachusetts 

Highland,  V.  L West  Virginia 

Hightower,  G.  R Mississippi 

HoBBS,  L.  L North  Carolina 

Hooper,  Ben  W Tennessee 

HuTCHiNS,  Harry  B Michigan 

Ingraham,  J.  E Florida 

Jackson,  Charles  C Massachusetts 

King,  Henry  C Ohio 

Knapp,  Martin  A.  District  of  Columbia 

Kochititzky,  Otto Missouri 

Kracke,  F.  j.  H New  York 

Lawrence,  Wm Massachusetts 

McCabe,  William  Gordo'.' Virginia 

McKinley,  William  B Illinois 

MacCracken,  Henry  M.  New  York 

Main,  John  H.  T Iowa 

Mansfield,  Howard New  York 

Maxim,  Hiram  Percy Connecticut 

Mitchell,  Samuel  C Delaware 

Morris,  Henry  C.  Illinois 

Nichols,  Ernest  Fox New  Hampshire 

Northrop,  Cyrus Minnesota 

Peabody,  Francis  G Massachusetts 


194  APPENDIX 

Philipp,  Emanuel  L Wisconsin 

Plantz,  Samuel        Wisconsin 

PoE,  Clarence  North  Carolina 

Porter,  Frank  Chamberlin        Connecticut 

PuGSLEY,  Chester  DeWitt New  York 

Record,  George  L New  Jersey 

Rosewater,  Victor Nebraska 

Sanger,  William  C New  York 

Scott,  Charles Mississippi 

Shanklin,  Wm.  Arnold Connecticut 

Sharpless,  Isaac Pennsylvania 

Sheats,  W.  N Florida 

Sloane,  Wm.  M New  York 

Spencer,  Nelson  S New  York 

Swain,  Joseph  Pennsylvania 

Sweet,  William  E Colorado 

Taft,  Lorado Illinois 

Thayer,  Wm.  Roscoe Massachusetts 

Thomas,  J.  T Mississippi 

Thomson,  James  M Louisiana 

Usher,  Roland  G.  Missouri 

Vincent,  George  E Minnesota 

Watrous,  Richard  B District  of  Columbia 

White,  Francis  A Maryland 

Wilcox,  Ansley  New  York 

Williams,  Chas.  D Michigan 

WiNSLOW,  John  B Wisconsin 


Finance  Committee 

Edward  A.  Filene,  Chairman 

Herbert  S.  Houston  Wm.  L.  Saunders 

Finley  J.  Shepard  Isaac  N.  Seligman 

Charles  S.  Ward 


Field  Committee 

Finley  J.  Shepard,  Chairman 

John  Bates  Clark  Hamilton  Holt 

Glenn  Frank  Chester  DeWitt  Pugsley 

Wilfred  W.  Fry  Charles  S.  Ward 

Philip  H.  Gadsden  Harry  A.  Wheeler 


Publications  Committee 

John  Bates  Clark,  Chairman 

L.  Roy  Curtiss  Eugene  Wambaugh 

Oscar  S.  Straus  Talcott  Williams 


Committee  on  Management 

Wm.  H.  Taft,  Chairman 

John  Bates  Clark  Herbert  S.  Houston 

Charles  Stewart  Davison  A.  Lawrence  Lowell 

Edward  A.  Filene  Theodore  Marburg 

George  Munroe  Forrest  Finley  J.  Shepard 

Hamilton  Holt  Wm.  H.  Wadhams 


APPENDIX 


195 


Committee  on  Resolutions 

Wm.  H.  Taft.  Chairman 

Philip  H.  Gadsden,  Vice-chairman 

George  Gray  Frederick  Lynch 

John  Hays  Hammond  Frank  S.  Streeter 

Darwin  P.  Kingsley  Wm.  H.  Wadhams 

Thomas  RAEBimN  White 


National  Office 
George  Munroe  Forrest,  Chairman 


T.  K.  Cory 


Wm.  H.  Short 


Herbert  S.  Houston 


Committee  on  Other  Societies  and  Organizations 
Wm.  H.  Wadhams,  Chairman 


George  L.  Beer 
Chester  DeWitt  Pugsley 


Edward  A.  Filene 
Glenn  Frank 


Committee  on  Foreign  Organization 
Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman 


John  Bates  Clark 
Edward  A.  Filene 
Wm.  Dudley  Foulke 
Harry  A.  Garfield 


John  Hays  Hammond 
John  Grier  Hibben 
Oscar  S.  Straus 
Talcott  Williams 


Committee  on  Information 
Herbert  S.  Houston,  Chairman 


Willis  J.  Abbott 
General  Felix  Agnus 
D.  R.  ANTHOi>nf,  Jr. 
Joseph  Blethen 
ScoTT  C.  Bone 
George  Booth 
Herbert  L.  Briixsman 
Paul  Brown 
John  Stewart  Bryan 
Calvin  Cobb 
W.  H.  Cowles 
James  M.  Cox 
M.  H.  DeYoung 
Solomon  Bulkley  Griffin 
Major  J.  C.  Hemphill 
John  Hicks 
Wm.  B.  Howland 
R.  M.  Johnston 
Jc»in  C.  Kelly 
Robert  Latham 


Francis  B.  Loomis 
Thomas  W.  Loyless 
Frederick  Lynch 
C.  R.  Macauley 
Frank  P.  MacLennan 
James  MacMullen 
Robert  Lincoln  O'Brien 
S.  A.  F>erkins 
Henry  M.  Pindell 
Edgar  S.  Riper 
Victor  Rosewater 
Ellery  Sedgwick 
John  C.  Shaffer 
R.  E.  Stafford 
John  A.  Stewart 
Henry  Watterson 
Talcott  Williams 
Louis  J.  Wortham 
N.  C.  Wright 
Caspar  S.  Yost 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Agricultural,  colleges  turn  out  potential  oflScers     .      .      .      .  ii8 

laborers  have  few  opportunities ii8 

Agriculture,  Department  of ,  how  it  helps  the  farmer  .      .  119 

Alliances,  entangling,  see  entangUng  alliances 

military  to  be  converted  into  trade 107 

now  at  war  to  be  continued 85 

present  two  not  likely  to  unite  immediately  after  the  war  .  90 

U.  S.  only  great  power  that  has  not  made 77 

victorious  one  can  prevent  another  war 86 

America,  concerned  in  World  Peace 35 

has  less  to  gain  and  more  to  give  than  any  other  nation       .  127 

not  sufficient  unto  itself 146 

thought  of ,  defined  by  President  Wilson 162 

American  ideals,  growing 1 23 

no  statement  of  final 1 24 

surrender  of  some  may  be  necessary 126 

American  labor,  far-reaching  interests  at  stake  108 

may  be  injured  by  economic  war 108 

wants  war  made  less  probable 108 

America's  ideal  is  to  be  the  leader  of  the  human  race  .            .  127 

Angel,  Norman,  says  we  must  mix  in  European  affai'.-            .  35 

Arbitration,  consented  to  by  the  Senate 61 

84  treaties  negotiated  by  the  U.  S 164 

firstbyU.  S 60 

has  done  much  to  remove  lesser  causes  of  friction                .  176 

Umit  of  reached 164 

ne.xt  step  after 165 

only  one  treaty  of  rejected  by  the  Senate 164 

recent  treaties  by  U.  S 71 

to  which  European  Powers  were  a  party 60 

to  which  U.  S.  was  a  party 60 

U.  S.  has  led  the  world  in 164 

world  justified  in  compelling 178 

84  international 60 

Armaments,  collective  theory  of 56 

how  this  nation  may  be  forced  into  competition  in  .            .  106 

reduction  of 26 

Armies,  large  proportion  made  up  of  farmers 117 

and  navies,  not  useless  in  peace 29 

Asquith,  Premier,  supports  League  proposals 48 

Assemblage,  first  annual  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace     3, 10, 13 

196 


INDEX  197 

PAGE 

Autocracy,  stage  tricks  for  arousing  patriotic  emotions    .      .  105 

war  to  determine  whether  the  future  belongs  to       .      .      .  113 
Baker,  Newton  D.,  paper  on  American  ideals  and  the  League 

program 122 

Balance  of  Power,  a  failure 32 

Benedetti,  Count,  calls  triple  alliance  a  portent  of  war      .      .  31 

Boycott,asameansof  enforcing  law  and  justice    ....  114 

international  must  be  voluntary 114 

Boynton,  Nehemiah,  remarks 187 

Bryce,  Lord,  favors  League  program 48 

remarkable  address  before  the  University  of  London    .      .  182 

says  aU  nations  are  adopting  American  form  of  government  52 

Business,  American,  favors  League  proposals 94 

paralyzed  at  beginning  of  war 97 

prefers  cooperation  to  conflict 96 

world  favors  conciliatory  methods  of  settling  all  disputes  .  102 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  U.  S.,  how  constituted  .      .      .  94 

referendum  approves  League  proposals 9,  94 

Chambers  of  Commerce,  fifth  international  congress,  for 

arbitration 102 

Child  Culture,  neglect  of,  a  reason  for  failure  of  the  new  gener- 
ation    155 

Churches,  fundamental  matters  at  stake 167 

represent  conviction  that  the  significance  of  life  does  not 

lie  in  economic  forces 167 

Civilization,  undermined 36, 38 

Clark,  John  Bates,  paper  on  European  Nations  and  the 

League  program 85 

Committee  on  Information,  methods  of  operation                   .  153 

Common  Action,  possibility  of  at  hand 84 

Concert  of  Action,  often  shared  in  by  U.  S 77 

of  Europe,  a  failure 32 

Conciliation,  Council  of,  character  of  questions  to  be  con- 
sidered by      17 

non-justiciable  questions,  how  referred  to 59 

enforced  not  proposed 135 

Conference,  international,  proposed  by  Penn         ....  20 

national  at  Philadelphia 6 

Congress'  power  to  declare  war  cannot  be  abridged     ...  64 

Conquest,  Spirit  of 30 

Constitutionality  of  League  proposals 58 

Council,  Executive,  see  Executive  Council 
Court,  International,  see  International  Court 

of  Nations,  how  it  might  be  created 91 

Cuba,  Independence  guaranteed  by  U.  S 66 

relations  with  U.  S.  defined 65 

Decisions  of  International  Court  not  to  be  enforced    .      .      .  113 

why  not  to  be  enforced 132 

Declaration  of  human  rights 12 

Defense,  greater  preparation  for,  demanded  by  business  .      .  99 


198  INDEX 

PAGE 

Defense  League,  New  Hampshire 184 

Delegates,  2,000  at  first  annual  assemblage 10 

Delegation  of  power  defined 61 

Democracy,  growth  encouraged  throughout  the  world  by  suc- 
cess here        140 

political,  more  in  England  than  America 140 

social,  greater  in  new  countries 140 

war  to  determine  whether  future  belongs  to        .      .      .      .  113 

Dinner  at  Washington  described 10 

Diplomacy,  has  failed  civilization 102 

play  of 29 

Disarmament,  preposterous 54 

total  not  yet  possible 113 

Disputes,  settlement  of  not  to  be  enforced 142 

Dogger  Bank  affair  settled  by  hearing 133 

Dreams  the  beginning  of  conscious  progress 1 74 

Economic,  struggle  may  be  severe  after  war 106 

war,  unparalleled  coming 106 

Enforced  decisions  of  an  International  Court  reactionary      .  114 

peace  proposed  by  William  Perm 20 

Entangling  alHance  argument  not  valid  now 136 

alliances,  paper  by  Talcott  Williams 77 

alliances,  potency  of  Washington's  Phrase 78 

Entente,  France  will  not  leave 85 

European  War,  League  to  Enforce  Peace  not  to  interfere  with  7 

Europe,  financial  exhaustion 42 

more  eager  to  sell,  less  able  to  buy 107 

new  efficiency  in 42 

why  receptive  toward  League  proposals 47 

Executive  Committee,  Interpretation  of  Article  3       .      .      .  8 

Council,  under  League  plan,  would  have  one  certain  duty  .  134 

Exports  on  unprecedented  scale  after  war 107 

Farewell  address.  See  Washington's  farewell  address 

Farmers,  constitute  a  large  proportion  of  armies    .      .      .      .  117 

small  margin  of  profit         116 

would  favor  peace  league 120 

would  suffer  much  in  war 116 

young,  acquiring  a  military  education 117 

Farrell,  James  A.,  says  we  must  have  more  foreign  trade  .      .  45 

Filene,  Edward  A.,  paper  by 36 

Force,  must  be  more  than  moral 175 

France  will  not  leave  the  Entente 85 

Franco-Prussian  War,  armed  peace  since 30 

Freedom  of  action,  national 15 

Gadsden,  PhiHp  H.,  paper  on  perfecting  the  organization  143 
Geneva  Tribunal  no  power  to  deal  with  indirect  claims     .  62 
German  Chancellor,  on  an  "unassailable  Germany"  .  31 
Germany  attached  great  importance  to  relations  with  Eng- 
land      139 

Giddings,  Franklin  H.,  address        170 


INDEX  199 

PAGE 

Gompers,  Samuel,  address  on  American  labor  and  a  con- 
structive settlement  of  the  war 104 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  favors  federation  of  nations      .      .      .       34, 48 

says  world  must  learn  to  avoid  war 29 

Hague,  The,  see  The  Hague 

Haldane,  Lord,  address  before  Amer.  Bar  Ass'n     ....  28 

Hallowell,  J.  Mott,  paper  on  planning  the  campaign  .      .      .  148 

Hearing  enforced  by  the  League  program         135 

Holt,  Hamilton,  paper  by 50 

Houston,  Herbert  S.,  remarks  on  publicity  plans  ....  152 

Ideals,  American,  how  they  grow 123 

superlative,  good  sense  in 167 

with  limitations 187 

Income,  National,  how  expended 100 

Indorsements  of  the  League 9 

Information,  Committee  on,  Methods  of  Operation    .      .      .  153 
International  Congress  of  Chambers  of  Commerce,  fifth, 

favors  arbitration 102 

sixth,  favors  peaceful  means  of  settling  differences  .      .      .  103 

International  Court,  decisions  not  to  be  enforced  .      .      .      .  113 

must  decide  upon  its  jurisdiction 59 

permanent  proposed 16 

submission  of  issues  to  be  enforced 113 

InternationalLaw,  system  of  new  agencies  created  by      .      .  83 

relationship  on  trial 36 

Unions  will  exist  after  the  war 85 

Internationalists  are  pacifists 51 

Isolation  of  U.  S.  no  longer  possible 179 

Jay  Treaty,  arbitration  under 60,62,164 

Judicial  Tribunal,  proper  subjects  for  decision  by        ...  60 

Jurisdiction  of  Commissioners  of  Arbitration  decided  by  them  62 

Kansas,  bonus  on  wheat  due  to  war       ...            ...  116 

Kant,  Immanuel,  on  universal  peace 51 

Labor,  American,  may  be  injured  by  economic  war     .      .      .  108 

American,  outlet  for  products  of,  restricted 107 

adverse  to  military  caste         113 

does  not  seek  abolition  of  military  force 113 

has  least  to  gain  by  war 104 

more  interested  than  any  other  class  in  peace      .      .      .      .  109 

movement  is  militant 113 

ready  to  bear  its  just  share  of  sacrifice 114 

supply 45 

to  insist  on  constructive  statesmanship 114 

what  it  wants  in  international  settlement 109 

will  insist  on  being  heard  in  reorganization  after  the  war    .  109 

Law  for  war,  substitution  of 46 

International,  see  International  Law 

League  of  Nations,  a  practical  certainty  soon 115 

theory  of 56 

two-thirds  completed 86 


200  INDEX 

PAGE 

League  to  Enforce  Peace  appeals  to  intellect,  not  emotions    .  151 

born  to  a  great  world  service loi 

conservatism  of  claims 176 

goal  to  have  this  nation  lead  in  forming  a  league  of  nations  149 

has  highest  of  all  aims  for  the  benefit  of  humanity   .            .  1 66 

how  it  might  have  prevented  the  present  war     .           .  139 

lacks  detail  but  not  definition 129 

must  be  strong  to  be  effective 1 79 

not  bound  to  carry  out  recommendations  of  council  of 

conciliation 70 

not  possible  unless  United  States  joins 1 79 

not  to  be  instituted  unless  it  embraces  nearly  all  great 

nations 138 

object  defined 144 

offers  only  prospect  of  preventing  war 180 

organization,  in  every  state 145 

origin  of 4 

outline  of 144 

platform  states  obvious  conclusions  of  experience    .      .      .  175 

principal  declared  purpose 131 

principles  concrete  and  practicable 176 

principles  indorsed  by  President  Wilson  and  others       .      .  142 

program,  consideration  of 13 

program  demands  careful  study  by  labor iii 

proposals 189 

requires  personal  sacrifice 147 

state  branches  essential 150 

when  and  where  organized 144 

wisely  refrains  from  trying  to  stop  the  war 113 

League  with  power  to  enforce  decisions  reactionar>'    .      .  114 
Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  on  the  great  work  of  the  League  to 

Enforce  Peace 164 

Lord  Haldane,  address  before  Amer.  Bar  Assn.,  extract  from  28 

Lowell,  Dr.  A.  Lawrence,  address  by 175 

Man  a  homicidal  mammal 181 

Marburg,  Theodore,  gets  approval  of  League  proposals  from 

European  statesmen        48 

reply  to  critics  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace     .      .      .  128 

Massachusetts  plan  of  organization 150 

Mathews,  Shailer,  address 167 

Militarism,  developed  by  balance  of  power 32 

fear  of  removed 49 

stage  tricks  for  arousing  patriotic  emotions 105 

Military,  caste,  labor  averse  to 113 

education,  young  farmers  acquiring 117 

force,  abolition  not  sought  by  labor 113 

force  fails  of  indorsement  in  Chamber  of  Commerce  refer- 
endum        95 

Monroe  Doctrine,  George  Graf  ton  Wilson  on 67 

Jefferson's  definition  of 68 


INDEX  20 1 

PAGK 

Monroe  Doctrine,  not  a  part  of  International  Law   ...  68 

spreads  a  Pax  Americana  over  two  continents       .      .      .  179 

U.  S.  bound  to  arbitrate  questions  under          ....  72 

variety  of  ideas  of 67 

Nation,  none  sufficient  unto  itself 147 

National,  duty  to  be  just 15 

Economic  League  indorses  League  proposals    ....  9 

freedom  of  action         15 

income,  liow  expended 100 

Nationalism,  development  of  a  new  peculiar  product  of  the 

nineteenth  century 182 

new,  a  new  type  of  religion  of  the  state 183 

spirit  of ,  a  cause  of  war,  must  be  made  a  check  upon  war    .  183 

Nations,  interests  of  all  are  our  own 160 

must  be  governed  by  same  high  code  of  honor  as  indi- 
viduals       161 

unfriendly  can  make  treaties  of  arbitration        ....  91 

Navies,  and  armies,  not  useless  in  peace 29 

two  could  enforce  peace  on  the  waters 84 

Neutrals,  war  dangerous  to 25 

New  Hampshire  method.  President  Taft  says  League  to 

Enforce  Peace  has  nothing  to  do  with 187 

New  York  State  Navy 54 

Objections,  Constitutional,  to  League  proposals    ....  58 

to  League  proposals 15 

Officers  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 191 

Organization,  Massachusetts  plan  of 150 

minimum  capital  for  a  state  branch 151 

national,  what  its  work  should  be 151 

New  Hampshire 184 

Organizing,  state  branch  of  the  League 150 

Origin  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 4 

Pacifism,  Middle  West  honeycombed  with 115 

Pacifists  and  preparationists  not  far  apart 50 

Panama,  independence  guaranteed  by  U.  S 65 

Panama  Canal,  new  problems  created  by 69 

Peace,  America  concerned  in  permanence  of 160 

breachof  world's,  an  offense  against  public  order    .      .      .  178 

hope  for,  rests  in  a  federation  of  nations 175 

limited  ideal  essential  to 188 

many  methods  of  securing  tried 97 

must  be  supported  by  force 178 

must  depend  on  more  wholesome  diplomacy      ....  161 

not  possible  to  maintain  always 176 

not  the  normal  status  of  human  affairs 180 

sound  political  policy 49 

world  has  a  right  to 162 

Penn,  William,  proposed  enforced  peace 20 

Philadelphia  National  Conference 6 

Power,  delegation  of  defined 61 


202  INDEX 

PAGE 

Power,  none  great  a  century  ago 79 

Powers,  400  in  Washington's  time,  fewer  than  60  now      .      .  79 

Preparationists  and  pacifists  not  far  apart        50 

Preparedness  program,  cost        44 

President  Wilson 10,159 

Presidents  of  U.  S.  have  all  abhorred  war 56 

Prize  Court  Convention,  The  Hague,  not  in  force  .     ...  62 

Progress  by  war 33 

hope  for,  rests  in  a  federation  of  nations 175 

Proposals  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 189 

constitutionality  of 58 

how  they  app)eal  to  a  labor  representative 113 

interpreted 8 

original  form 7 

Powers  should  be  committed  to  them  before  peace  is  de- 
clared   143 

third,  the  most  disputed 88 

Public  opinion,  support  of,  essential  to  success  of  the  League 

program 149 

the  real  power  which  brings  men  into  court 154 

Public  right  must  take  precedence  over  individual  interests  .  161 

Referenda,  how  taken  by  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  U.  S.  94 

Referendum  on  League's  proposals 94 

Religion,  has  become  international 169 

more  than  church  going 169 

Re- valuation  of  all  values  begun 172 

Rhett,  R.  G.,  Paper  on  ^\inerican  business  and  the  League  to 

Enforce  Peace 93 

Salisbury,  Marquis,  favors  European  federation    ....  31 

Samaritan,  Good,  Parable  applied 37 

Sovereignty,  every  people  has  a  right  to  choose      .      .      .      .  162 

of  U.  S.  not  limited 59 

Spencer,  Herbert,  for  a  federation  of  nations 34 

Statesmanship,  purpose  declared 107 

Status  quo,  maintenance  not  necessary  under  League  pro- 
gram    18 

Straus,  Oscar  S.,  paper  by 27 

Streeter,  Frank  S.,  on  New  Hampshire  plan  of  organization  .  184 

Taft,  Wm.  H.,  defines  scope  of  League  program     ....  187 

elected  president  of  the  League 7 

paper  on  constitutionality 58 

presides  at  Washington  assemblage 11 

Tariff,  barriers  to  be  set  up  after  war 107 

high  in  Europe 43 

The  Hague  conferences  promoted  cooperation       ....  96 

Conventions  of  1899  and  1907 71 

First  Conference,  Dogger  Bank  affair  referred  to  commis- 
sion       133 

Peace  Conferences  at 31 

Prize  Court  Convention  not  in  force 62 


INDEX  203 

PAGE 

The   Hague,   Prize  Court  Convention,    U.   S.   agreed  to 

abide  by  decisions 62 

Theory,  of  a  league  of  nations 56 

of  collective  armaments 56 

Treaties,  Bryan,  go  farther  toward  war  than  the  League's 

proposals 141 

Treaty,  power  to  make  unlimited  except  by  Constitution       .  59 

violation  of ,  just  cause  of  war 74 

with  Panama 65 

Tribunal,  Geneva,  see  Geneva  Tribunal 

judicial,  proper  subjects  for  decision  by  , 60 

Tribunal,  nations  not  willing  to  agree  in  advance  to  abide  by 

all  decisions  of 176 

Triple  Alliance  and  Triple  Entente  fail  to  keep  peace       .      .  32 

United  States,  duty  of 41 

essential  to  League  to  Enforce  Peace 1 79 

foresight 40 

isolation  of ,  no  longer  possible 179 

only  great  power  that  has  not  made  alliances     ....  77 

sovereignty  not  limited 59 

willing  to  join  any  feasible  association  of  nations     .      .      .  163 

"Utopia and  hell" 31 

Utopia,  search  for,  lead  to  great  discoveries 166 

Vigilance  Committee,  International 47 

nations  to  form 112 

method 55 

Virginia  State  Navy 54 

Vrooman,   Carl,  Paper  on  American  agriculture  and  the 

League  to  Enforce  Peace 115 

Wadhams,  William  H.,  paper  on  mobilization  of  our  forces    .  1 54 

Wage  earners,  see  Labor 

War,  abhorred  by  all  Presidents  of  U.  S 56 

alleged  cause  a  libel  on  commerce 102 

always  means  sacrifice  for  labor 108 

a  result  of  a  condition  of  international  anarchy  .      .      .      .  130 

arises  principally  from  conflicts  of  policy 131 

a  wholesale  source  of  injustice 136 

cannot  be  begun  until  declared  by  Congress 64 

constitutional  obligation  to  declare  in  certain  contingen- 
cies       64 

could  come  only  suddenly  and  out  of  secret  councils     .      .  160 

curse  of 34 

dangerous  to  neutrals 25 

delay  might  have  prevented  European 183 

economic,  unparalleled  to  come    .      . 106 

farmers  would  suffer  greatly  in 116 

has  affected  us  profoundly 159 

impossible  to  stop  all 166 

League  to  Enforce  Peace  wisely  refrains  from  trying  to 

stop 113 


204  INDEX 

PAGE 

War,  lessons  taught  by 146 

maker  of,  restrained  by  armed  authority 175 

monstrous  beyond  all  other  discredited  ways  of  attaining 

ends 173 

most  tremendous  stimulus  to  self-examination        .      ,      .  172 

not  possible  to  abolish  all  future 176 

not  prohibited  after  award  of  International  Court  .      .      .  135 

not  so  handsome  as  it  was 97 

progress  due  to ^^ 

power  to  declare,  not  taken  from  Congress 63 

preventive  statesmanship  to  be  demanded  after      .     .     .  125 

slow 29 

some  things  worse  than 158 

three  possible  outcomes 87 

to  determine  whether  the  future  belongs  to  autocracy  or 

democracy 113 

violation  of  treaty  just  cause  of 74 

warning  of  second  Balkan 87 

without  giving  reasons  not  a  sacred  right  of  nations      .      .  177 

workers  have  least  to  gain  from 104 

world  has  a  right  to  know  reason  for 178 

Washington  predicted  coming  Power  of  America  ....  84 

would  favor  a  constructive  league  now          84 

Washington's  Farewell  Address,  admonition  against  entang- 
ling alliances  quickly  disregarded         179 

West,  Middle,  honeycombed  with  pacifism 115 

Wheeler,  Benjamin  Ida,  address  by 180 

Wheeler,  Harry  A.  paper  on  the  League's  service  to  the  world  loi 

White,  Thomas  Raeburn,  paper  by 13 

Williams,  Talcott,  paper  on  entangling  alliances          ...  77 

Wilson,  George  Grafton,  paper  on  Monroe  Doctrine  ...  67 

Wilson,  President 10 

address  by 159 

Workers,  sec  labor 

World  demands  league  to  preserve  peace 85 

disillusioned  but  not  discouraged 172 

on  the  eve  of  a  great  consummation 163 

organization,  evolution  of $3 

organization,  three  methods  tried 32 

Peace  Foundation  indorses  League  proposals     ....  9 


THE  COUNTRY  LIFE  PRESS,  GARDEN  CITY,  N.  Y. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JAN  1 0  19§i 


REC'D  MLD 

AUG  slTOS^-^ 
OCT  :^  0195^ 

SEP  2  419^ 

^^C'O  LD-URL 

OCT    0  2    199T 


BRIITLE  REJECTED  BY  EINDERY 


FormL9-20m-7,'61(C1437s4)444 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  431  041    1 


Univefsity  of  California,  Los  Angeles 


L  005  415  410  9 


iillliB^^^ 


ii 


